- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 3 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Hi MF,
Here are songs from Revelation.
Revelation 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
By the 24 ELDERS
Revelation 14:3
And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
The 144.000
Revelation 15:3
And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.Those who had triumphed in the great tribulation.
Hi MF,
Thanks for you answer. I also see the angels to be a different kind compared to Jesus. I do not see Jesus as pre-existing as one of the angels, a messenger yes, but not one of the angels eventhough He may have been called the “angel of the Lord.”LU
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 12 2008,16:06) Hi MF,
Thanks for you answer. I also see the angels to be a different kind compared to Jesus. I do not see Jesus as pre-existing as one of the angels, a messenger yes, but not one of the angels eventhough He may have been called the “angel of the Lord.”LU
I agree, IMO since Jesus came forth from the Father before the world was.
The question is tho, since it says in Rev. 3:14 that He was the firstborn of all creation, was He created the same then the angels? They were and are all Spirit beings. So what would be so different then?
Maybe because He was selected to become a Human being and die for us?
These are all questions that can be interpret in one way or another. IMO
What do you think?
Love IreneQuote (Tiffany @ Oct. 12 2008,07:42) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 11 2008,23:03) A firstborn can lose his birth right and given to another. All firstborns were literally speaking the firstborn.
With the following exception: It could be lost and given/transferred to another.
So why isn't Jesus literally the firstborn of all creation?
Why isn't he the first act of the Father?What makes a person think that Yeshua wasn't actually the first born of or over all creation, but only in status?
t8 Good question!! Those that do not believe in the preexisting of Jesus however, seem to not look at it like that.
Is it because God only calls a few to understand the Truth right now? Many are called and few are chosen. We can talk to them until you blue in the face and they just don't get. I have found that to be true with our Family too.
We do know that all truth will be taught in the Millenium and the truth will cover the earth like water covers the sea.
I believe time is short, all signs are here. For Christ return.
I for one am looking forward to that very much.
Peace and Love Irene
Which scripture are we actually speaking of here?
Gen 38:14-20?Are we told that Ephaim became called “firstborn” or that he was given the birthright?
I may have not been paying attention, but what is the actual reason for not believing that Jesus being the firstborn is the same general meaning as when it is almost always used in scripture?
Also, this is the John 1:1 thread. There has to be a better thread to discuss this. There may even be one on Jesus being the firstborn.
Quote (david @ Oct. 13 2008,06:36) Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 12 2008,07:42) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 11 2008,23:03) A firstborn can lose his birth right and given to another. All firstborns were literally speaking the firstborn.
With the following exception: It could be lost and given/transferred to another.
So why isn't Jesus literally the firstborn of all creation?
Why isn't he the first act of the Father?What makes a person think that Yeshua wasn't actually the first born of or over all creation, but only in status?
t8 Good question!! Those that do not believe in the preexisting of Jesus however, seem to not look at it like that.
Is it because God only calls a few to understand the Truth right now? Many are called and few are chosen. We can talk to them until you blue in the face and they just don't get. I have found that to be true with our Family too.
We do know that all truth will be taught in the Millenium and the truth will cover the earth like water covers the sea.
I believe time is short, all signs are here. For Christ return.
I for one am looking forward to that very much.
Peace and Love Irene
Which scripture are we actually speaking of here?
Gen 38:14-20?Are we told that Ephaim became called “firstborn” or that he was given the birthright?
I may have not been paying attention, but what is the actual reason for not believing that Jesus being the firstborn is the same general meaning as when it is almost always used in scripture?
Also, this is the John 1:1 thread. There has to be a better thread to discuss this. There may even be one on Jesus being the firstborn.
We are talking about Jesus preexisting.
IreneQuote We are talking about Jesus preexisting.
Irene
Yes, I know that is the larger subject. It's just, I haven't seen John 1:1 mentioned for quite some time and that is actually the subject. (There are at least two threads on Jesus “pre-existence.”)The truth is, regarding John 1:1, it can go either way. It all depends on whether the translators believe God is a trinity or not. If God wasn't a trinity, and this was just a normal sentence dealing with normal things, it would be a conflict to have Jesus be “with” God and at the same time be God, so a definite article would be needed. (Greek of course doesn't have definite articles, so where the context demands them, they should be put.)
If on the other hand, God is a trinity, then sure, it could be translated either way.
Since the vast almost complete majority of Bible translators have been trinitarians, we do a lot of translations saying Jesus is God in John 1:1. But even though almost all translation teams are trinitarian and have trinitarian beliefs, here are how some Bible's have translated John 1:1:The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson’s Interlinear reading:
“and a god was the Word.”The Bible—An American Translation (1935), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed.
“the Word was divine”
(The translation by Hugh J. Schonfield is the same.)?
A New Translation of the Bible (1934), James Moffatt:
“the Logos was divine”The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808), published in London:
“the word was a god.”Todays English Version:
“and he was the same as God.”The New English Bible (The Revised English Bible):
“and what God was, the Word was.”La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel (1928):
“and the Word was a divine being.”The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, by James L. Tomanek. (1958):
“and the Word was a God.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany(1975):
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.”
(This one and the following two are translated from German.)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin (1978):
“and godlike kind was the Logos.”Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany (1979)
“and a god was the Logos”
The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey:
“and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.”Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :
“and the Word was a god,” we also have:
The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)Other readings, by German translators, follow.
By Böhmer:
“It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.”By Stage:
“The Word was itself of divine being.”By Menge:
“And God (= of divine being) the Word was.”By Ludwig Thimme: (Das Neue Testament)
“And God of a sort the Word was.”Again, grammatically, this can go either way. It all depends on what you believe before you approach this verse.
Stan Bruce lecturer in New Testament Greek at All Nations Christian College, Hertfordshire, UK, for over 30 years, has written:
“Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God.”-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, “Lesson 3,” p.23.
Hi David
Interesting to see all those different translations
Another angle is to look at the 'Word' as translated Logos in the Greek and use its equivalent in Aramaic “Memra”
It's worth looking it up, as this is the word that many rabbis used when paraphrasing the Hebrew into Aramaic.
There are a lot of different opinions as to what the Memra completely entails
and it also is used by trinitarians to support their view.
However it is much closer to the original Hebraic concept of God I believe than its Greek equivalent which carried with it
a lot of philosophical and mythological baggage.
John was after all a Hebrew and not a Greek.Anyone have any insights into this Memra?
If you however go on into verse 10 you will see that Jesus created the world, a plan of God would not be the case here. It is an action that Jesus is performing. And that goes well with all other Scriptures that prove the preexisting of Jesus. No other explaination as far as I am concerned, needed. The case is closed for me.
Peace and Love IreneNo one seems to know this or care, but the way the coptic translators translated John 1:1 about 1700 years ago may just be the most important clue to helping us to understand how it should be translated.
Translating “the Word was a god,” 1700 Years Ago
“At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt.” – Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 1153 * Similarly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “All these data point to the 3rd century as the latest terminus a quo [point of origin] for the earliest Coptic translation.” **
This earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for “Egyptian”) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.
The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):
1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1Literally, the Coptic says:
1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the wordWe can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “was a god.”
Many ancient Coptic manuscripts were collated and translated into English by Coptic scholar George W. Horner. In 1911, Horner published an English translation of John’s gospel. He rendered John 1:1c as: “In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and [a] God was the word.” 2 He encloses the indefinite article “a” within brackets, which might indicate that he considered that here its translation is not required in English. However, in his own translation of the same Coptic sentence structure in other verses in John, Horner himself does render the indefinite article in English as “a”, without any brackets, which is entirely proper at John 1:1c also.
Some examples of the Coptic indefinite article with the noun structure that Horner translates into English with an unbracketed “a” in the Gospel of John follow below. They are also verses in which most English versions of John translate the Greek pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns with an “a. ” :
John 4:19: “a prophet” (NRSV; Horner)
John 6:70: “a devil” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: “a murderer” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: “a liar ” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:48: “a Samaritan” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:17: “a prophet” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:24: “a sinner” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:25: ” a sinner” (NRSV; Horner)
John 10:1: ” a thief” (NRSV; Horner
John 10:13: “a hired hand ” (NRSV; Horner)
John 12:6: ” a thief” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:35: “a Jew” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37a: “a king” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37b: “a king.” (NRSV; Horner) 3Literally, Sahidic Coptic *ou.noute* means “a god.” 4 When a Coptic noun is a common noun and refers to an entity (“man,” “god”) the Coptic indefinite article is customarily translated by the English indefinite article “a”. The Coptic indefinite article ou marks the noun as a non-specific individual or a specimen of a class. 5 When the noun refers to an abstract idea (“truth,” “happiness”) or an unspecified quantity of a substance (“water,” “some water”; “gold,” “some gold”), or is used adjectively (“wise,” “divine”), the Coptic indefinite article need not be translated by the English indefinite article “a.” 6
Thus, while it can be said that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly in usage to the English indefinite article, it does correspond closely to it. 7 Because at John 1:1c, the Coptic indefinite article is bound to a common noun and refers to an entity, the Word, the translation “a god” is proper.
How competent were the ancient Coptic Egyptian translators to convey the sense of the Greek text of John? Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek had been a legacy of Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work, and it was still a living language. According to Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton, the Coptic translation is “a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant.” 8 Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early exegetes interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition.
Although the third century may be the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation, can a date for its beginning be more clearly ascertained? Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13) Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version 9
The value of the Coptic text lies not only in its indication of how early scribes understood the Greek of John 1:1, but also in its value for determining the correct text of that gospel. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger wrote: “[The] Alexandrian text [is] the best text and most faithful in preserving the original….The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.” 10 Additionally, one can note readings in the Coptic text that are found in the earliest existing manuscripts of John, the p66 (Papyrus Bodmer II, middle second century CE) and p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, late second century CE). 11
There is also the matter of precision in rendering John 1:1c. The Koine Greek language has only the definite article, with indefiniteness being indicated by the lack of the article (called the “anarthrous” construction). Of the other early translations from the Greek, Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, and Syriac has only the definite determinator in its grammatical structure. The Sahidic Coptic language, however – like English – has both the definite article and the indefinite article as part of its syntactical system.
This means that when the Coptic translators wrote ou noute, “a god,” at John 1:1c, referring to the entity that is the Word, they were being specific, not ambiguous. They could have used the definite article and written p.noute at this verse if they had meant “God,” just as they did at John 1:1b: auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute, “and the Word was with [literally, “in the presence of] God.”
Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.”
Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is t
he literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, or “the Word was godlike.” But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the non-specific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation found primarily in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.
Translating John 1:1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism.
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008….go.html
It's remarkable how the gospel of thomas (in coptic) when discovered became so popular, but John in coptic (discovered decades earlier) is virtually unknown.
Here is an article in a Watchtower:
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?That question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.” – The Holy Bible – New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:”Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidi Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
(Half way down page,
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx)WHAT FOLLOWS THAT ARTICLE ON THE WEBSITE I TOOK THIS FROM IS SOMEONE WHO SEEM STO KNOW LANGUAGE AND TO HAVE EVEN STUDIED THE COPTIC LANGUAGES.
SHE ARGUES AGAINST THE JW'S TRANSLATION, OR AT LEAST, SHE EXPLAINS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE–“DIVINE.”
Note what she says:
“Had the Society examined the recent Coptic grammar by Bentley Layton (Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic [Leuven: Peeters, 2007]), or even Layton's older Coptic grammar, they would have known that noute “god” is one of the nouns that could be used qualitatively to mean “divine”, which would have an indefinite article in predicate position.”
Yes, perhaps the coptic which literally says “a god” could be translated into English to mean “divine.”
She goes on:“The Watchtower article is thus wrong about Coptic grammar and does not acknowledge that the Coptic rendering in John 1:1 is actually ambiguous between an indefinite “The Word was a god” and a qualitative “The Word was divine”.”
Ok, so it could either be “a god” or “divine” according to the coptic translation of a couple hundred years after Christ. Got it.
Going on, she says:
“Both options would require the indefinite article in Coptic and thus the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic text does not by itself favor an English rendering with an indefinite article versus one with a qualitative expression. The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite.”http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx
We definitely have someone here who argues against the Watchtower and what it said, but notice what she acknowledges–it has to be translated either “a god” OR “divine” but not “God.” This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.
So, we're getting closer to understanding how the earliest Christians (those before the councels of trinity belief) understood this verse.–john 1:1
Reading further on, she states:
The Coptic translation is valid evidence against the interpretation of the anarthrous theos as definite, i.e. “The Word was God”. The Watchtower article came to a similar conclusion but (grossly) oversimplified the issue by portraying the use of the indefinite article in Coptic as itself meaning that the Word was “a god”.
Quote If Jesus is a lesser god or the mighty god, or any other way people want to try and make a difference without a distinction, then he is still a false god since there is only 1 true god. Hi Eppy, I read this on page 115. It's false for several reasons. The Father being called the only “true” God does not mean Jesus is a false god any more than me saying you're the only true man on this website makes Nick a false man. (We would understand it to mean that you display the qualities of a man–what it means to be a man–to a much further degree)
God means “strong one/powerful one.” While many have degrees of power, and some much much more than others, (angels more than us for example) God “Almighty” has no limit to his power, hence, compared to all others, he is the only true mighty one, the only true God.The false gods in the Bible were things that people believed had power, but as the Bible says: eyes they have, but they cannot see, ears they have but they cannot hear.
In Acts 19, we see people considered the “goddess Artimis” to be “great.” But as Paul said, they are “not gods” at all–they are false gods. (verse 26)Since we now understand what the word 'god' means, it shouldn't be hard to understand why Jesus (who isn't a false god) and why angles (who aren't false gods) are called gods (mighty/strong/powerful ones)
But this doesn't mean they're false gods, for they definitely have power. Yet, compared to Jehovah, the almighty, it is very little power.Peace greetings ALL,
Yahchanan [John] 1:1 does not say “… and the word was Jesus.”
Quote (david @ Oct. 13 2008,19:23) Here is an article in a Watchtower:
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
I just want to remind people that in the Greek there is neither a definite or indefinite article in John 1:1c for 'theos'.i.e., there is no 'THE' or 'A'.
That in itself doesn't rule out the possibility that it cannot be translated with either, but it isn't there, so there needs to be an explanation as to why either should be added.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Oct. 14 2008,08:45) Yahchanan [John] 1:1 does not say “… and the word was Jesus.”
It says that the Word became flesh, and that Jesus is the one identified as the Word that became flesh. This is the point to John's gospel. i.e., the identification of Jesus.Are we going to ignore the extremely relevant coptic translation then, as people have done for years?
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.”)Hi brother David there is no necessity to add “a” before God. The word of God always is the same it never changes. God sends His word to fulfill His will. It is not another person apart from that One God. God is always remain One and Only as per Jn 5:44. There can not be another God besides that One God who created this universe apart from God the Father.
Peace to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Oct. 14 2008,23:44) Hi brother David there is no necessity to add “a” before God. The word of God always is the same it never changes. God sends His word to fulfill His will. It is not another person apart from that One God. God is always remain One and Only as per Jn 5:44. There can not be another God besides that One God who created this universe apart from God the Father. Peace to you
Adam
Adam Read on and the Word became flesh and walked among us. You are forgetting God Almighty will not ever be visible to us as humans. Only He that came from heaven has seen Him, and that is the Word God that left that realm and emptied Himself and became a man and was called Jesus. Both have other names, God is a tiltle. There are many God's, even Satan is God of this world.
Peace and Love IreneQuote Hi brother David there is no necessity to add “a” before God. The word of God always is the same it never changes. God sends His word to fulfill His will. It is not another person apart from that One God. God is always remain One and Only as per Jn 5:44. There can not be another God besides that One God who created this universe apart from God the Father. Hi golli.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Greek has no indefinite article [a]. It does have a definite article [the]. While this definite article appears before the first God in that verse, it does not appear before the last “god” mentioned.
Since there is no indefinite article in the greek language, where the context demands it, the translator adds the [a], otherwise there would be no “a's” in the New testament.Since we have the mind of early Christians who spoke the early sahidic version of the coptic language, a language that unlike Greek, or latin, does have and use an indefinite article, it's very interesting to note how early Christians translated the Greek into the coptic language.
THEY TRANSLATED IT AS “A GOD.”
Anyway, there's an actual thread about this now, which I imagine will be largely ignored by trinitarians as they want to hear nothing about this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
