- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (942767 @ Aug. 13 2010,14:02) Hi Mike: I believe that if you will read these scriptures carefully you will see that Jesus was not speaking of returning to a former glory that he had prior to his being glorified upon finishing the work that God gave him to do on this earth, but he was speaking in terms of going to a glory that was foreordained before the foundation of the world.
Hi Marty,I'm with Ed J on this point. You just pasting scriptures does not tell me what you want me to understand from them.
Please post a scripture, and tell me what YOU think it means, and then I'll either agree or disagree with your view. I have no clue what point you are trying to make with what part of what scripture here.
peace and love,
mike942767………..It is obvious to us that is what it is saying, but not all understand correctely brother.
peace and love to you and yours…………………….gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2010,14:14) Quote (942767 @ Aug. 13 2010,14:02) Hi Mike: I believe that if you will read these scriptures carefully you will see that Jesus was not speaking of returning to a former glory that he had prior to his being glorified upon finishing the work that God gave him to do on this earth, but he was speaking in terms of going to a glory that was foreordained before the foundation of the world.
Hi Marty,I'm with Ed J on this point. You just pasting scriptures does not tell me what you want me to understand from them.
Please post a scripture, and tell me what YOU think it means, and then I'll either agree or disagree with your view. I have no clue what point you are trying to make with what part of what scripture here.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike:I have posted the scriptures as they relate to each other so that you can read for yourself and see what Jesus meant.
I know that you are an intelligent person.
Love in Christ,
MartyMike……..So you say we are not reserved unto Gogy and Honor as Jesus was. Well scripture seem to disagree with you.
Psa 8:5 What is man , that thou are mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou has visited him? Vers 8:5 …> For thou has made him a little lower than the angles, and hast crowned him with (GLORY) AND HONOR.
Now tell us when was this glory placed on man after he was created or before God ever Created HIM. Man acquires what GOD already had in mind for Him the same as Jesus does. We simply attain to it as Jesus did also.
And again……Rom 8: 18 ………> For i reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the (GLORY) which shall be revealed in us.
Rom 8:22…> Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the (GLORIOUS) liberty of the childern of God.
1 Peter 5:1…..> The elder which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and (ALSO) a (PARTAKER) of the (GLORY) that shall be revealed. (notice) Peter is saying he is (ALREADY) a (partaker)of that glory that shall be revealed.
And again 1 Peter 5:4……..And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye hall recieve a crown of (GLORY) that fades not.
Tell us mike when will we recieve our already existing crowns is it not after we are resurected and was that crown of (GLORY) not Predestined for Us ” Yes it most certainly was and it is reserved in Heaven for us just as it was For Jesus Christ and He obtained it when He was raised from the Grave even though it was already foreordained to happen and the same for us, Whom GOD foreknew and predestined to this Glory as the Son of the Living GOD.
So we can also say as Jesus did, this Glory we had with GOD before there every was a creation on earth. It was all in the Plan and WILL of GOD, reserved in the heavens for us as it was fore Jesus a Glory we had with the Father before we were ever came into being we had it with the Father. But your separation of Jesus from yourself doesn't allow you to see that Mike. You and all preexistences must alway separate Christ Jesus from yourself and be careful you may achieve you GOAL That would be truly sad brother. IMO
peace and love……………………..gene
In John 17:5 it clearly states that by Jesus own words, He had a glory with His Father in Heaven before the world was. We do know that He is a Spirit Being now, and that is what He was before…Many will say that Christ went to Heaven Body and Soul. We have however Scripture that says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God……. He was here on earth and He was in Heaven before the world was, emptied Himself and came in the flesh, to die for us…….. I don't think that is to hard to understand. Especially since it is said by Jesus Himself. I don't also think that we should ignore Jesus words….He also has said that He came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father. And other Scriptures too..I thing that John 1:1 also shows us that Jesus who became flesh was called The Word of God….And of course Rev. 19:13-16
Those are all Scripturess that show us what Jesus will come back as…..The Word of God….KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…
Peace to all….Quote (Guest @ Aug. 13 2010,19:01) In John 17:5 it clearly states that by Jesus own words, He had a glory with His Father in Heaven before the world was. We do know that He is a Spirit Being now, and that is what He was before…Many will say that Christ went to Heaven Body and Soul. We have however Scripture that says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God……. He was here on earth and He was in Heaven before the world was, emptied Himself and came in the flesh, to die for us…….. I don't think that is to hard to understand. Especially since it is said by Jesus Himself. I don't also think that we should ignore Jesus words….He also has said that He came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father. And other Scriptures too..I thing that John 1:1 also shows us that Jesus who became flesh was called The Word of God….And of course Rev. 19:13-16
Those are all Scripturess that show us what Jesus will come back as…..The Word of God….KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…
Peace to all….
Guest,I was just about to jump out of my skin in praise to God until I reached that part of your statement I put in red bold. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus is the Word of God. The word “God” is written in the nominative case and is to be translated “God”.
Nominative: God
Genetive: of GodIt is written in the nominative which reads “God.” It says that the Word was God.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,08:14) Quote (Guest @ Aug. 13 2010,19:01) In John 17:5 it clearly states that by Jesus own words, He had a glory with His Father in Heaven before the world was. We do know that He is a Spirit Being now, and that is what He was before…Many will say that Christ went to Heaven Body and Soul. We have however Scripture that says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God……. He was here on earth and He was in Heaven before the world was, emptied Himself and came in the flesh, to die for us…….. I don't think that is to hard to understand. Especially since it is said by Jesus Himself. I don't also think that we should ignore Jesus words….He also has said that He came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father. And other Scriptures too..I thing that John 1:1 also shows us that Jesus who became flesh was called The Word of God….And of course Rev. 19:13-16
Those are all Scripturess that show us what Jesus will come back as…..The Word of God….KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…
Peace to all….
Guest,I was just about to jump out of my skin in praise to God until I reached that part of your statement I put in red bold. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus is the Word of God. The word “God” is written in the nominative case and is to be translated “God”.
Nominative: God
Genetive: of GodIt is written in the nominative which reads “God.” It says that the Word was God.
the Roo
There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a “version of a version.” In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads, “All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.” As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.” “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used “him” in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew,” published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses “it” in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him” which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, “it” instead of “him.”. The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.” It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, “it” instead of “him.”
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”
The “logos” (Word) of John 1:1 means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of [Yahweh]” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.
To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to supp
ort their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Jn.1.htmlQuote (martian @ Aug. 14 2010,17:22) There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
What do you know about translating martian? Do you have any credentials in translating Biblical Hebrew and Greek scriptures?For example do you know what case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things?
If not what right do you have to say John 1:1 is mistranslated?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,09:30) Quote (martian @ Aug. 14 2010,17:22) There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
What do you know about translating martian? Do you have any credentials in translating Biblical Hebrew and Greek scriptures?For example do you know what case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things?
If not what right do you have to say John 1:1 is mistranslated?
WJ
Did I say it was on my authority that it is mistranslated. This is a quote from a website. Argue with them if you like. I just found it interesting that some of the earliest translations did not use him but it.BTW. I am not impressed with your credentials. There are lots of very well educated people that have no more truth or common sense then a cross eyed donkey.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,09:30) Quote (martian @ Aug. 14 2010,17:22) There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
What do you know about translating martian? Do you have any credentials in translating Biblical Hebrew and Greek scriptures?For example do you know what case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things?
If not what right do you have to say John 1:1 is mistranslated?
WJ
Why don't you try dealing with the content of the post instead of making a personal slam at me.
This is why I stopped posting to you because you insist on sticking to a doctrine that has no point no purpose and no fruit. Have at it WJ. So have at it. KJeep spounting off your intelectualized, Greek thinking mumbo jumbo dead end theology. When you get nothing back but a hollow echo from the dead end then enjoy it. Eat it up my friend. I am sure you are impressing lots of people out there. That is your purpose in all this isn't it?Quote (942767 @ Aug. 13 2010,14:49) Hi Mike: I have posted the scriptures as they relate to each other so that you can read for yourself and see what Jesus meant.
I know that you are an intelligent person.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hi Marty,Thanks for that vote of confidence, but your scriptures do no more to make me think Jesus DIDN'T pre-exist than the ones I post for you make you think he DID.
It would be like me just pasting “ascend to where I was before” and then saying you are intelligent…….figure it out.
Do you get my point? If you think those scriptures imply Jesus didn't pre-exist, then you'll have to spell it out for me because I'm not seeing it.
peace and love,
mikeOkay Gene,
Quote Psa 8:5 What is man , that thou are mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou has visited him? Vers 8:5 …> For thou has made him a little lower than the angles, and hast crowned him with (GLORY) AND HONOR. Yes, man has a glory all of his own, just like the flowers in the field do. Which man said he had glory in God's presence before the world?
Quote For i reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the (GLORY) which shall be revealed in us.
Yes, some of us will gain more glory than we presently have if we endure until the end. Which man said he had glory in God's presence before the world?Quote Rom 8:22…> Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the (GLORIOUS) liberty of the childern of God. 
I don't get how this one applies to the point you are trying to make. 8:18 says, “For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us.” Paul apparently knows nothing of the glory he looks forward to. He just knows it will be such that it is worth every bit of suffering he was going through. Which man said he knew what glory he had in God's presence before the world?Quote 1 Peter 5:1…..> The elder which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and (ALSO) a (PARTAKER) of the (GLORY) that shall be revealed. (notice) Peter is saying he is (ALREADY) a (partaker)of that glory that shall be revealed.
Yes, Peter looks forward to partaking in the glory God has instore for him, as do we all I imagine. Will you partake in that glory Gene? If you are confident you will, then you too could say what Peter did. But who was the only man that said he wanted to RETURN to the glory he left in the presence of God before the world?Quote And again 1 Peter 5:4……..And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye hall recieve a crown of (GLORY) that fades not. Tell us mike when will we recieve our already existing crowns is it not after we are resurected and was that crown of (GLORY) not Predestined for Us
Again, Peter looks forward to receiving a crown of glory. He doesn't, however, mention returning to glory he already had in the presence of God before the world, does he? Only one man says that. And although you have no clue whatsoever if the crowns already exist or if God will “poof” them into being that same day, it is beside the point. Even if the crowns already await some of us, none of us could say we are returning to the glory we had in God's presence before the world.
Quote So we can also say as Jesus did, this Glory we had with GOD before there every was a creation on earth. It was all in the Plan and WILL of GOD, reserved in the heavens for us as it was fore Jesus a Glory we had with the Father before we were ever came into being we had it with the Father.
Are you aware of this glory you had? Can you tell me how much you had? Was it more or less than the glory I had? No Gene, you have no memory of any glory you had in God's presence before the world. Jesus did have a memory of it, and asked God to return him to that glory. He wasn't asking to be returned to a “thought in God's brain” Gene.peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,08:06) Martian said to Mikeboll: Quote Go back to your Monkey ministries. 
the Roo
Hi Jack,Would you like me to go to some threads and out of the blue post some of the things that Martian has said about you?
Would that be funny to you?
Quote (martian @ Aug. 15 2010,10:32) Did I say it was on my authority that it is mistranslated. This is a quote from a website.
Well then it HAS to be correct, right? It was on the web!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,08:14) It is written in the nominative which reads “God.” It says that the Word was God.
Yes Roo,It says the word was god and with THE god. Later we find out the word was the only begotten god, while THE god is the only unbegotten, just like scripture and Ignatius say.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2010,14:11) Quote (942767 @ Aug. 13 2010,14:49) Hi Mike: I have posted the scriptures as they relate to each other so that you can read for yourself and see what Jesus meant.
I know that you are an intelligent person.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hi Marty,Thanks for that vote of confidence, but your scriptures do no more to make me think Jesus DIDN'T pre-exist than the ones I post for you make you think he DID.
It would be like me just pasting “ascend to where I was before” and then saying you are intelligent…….figure it out.
Do you get my point? If you think those scriptures imply Jesus didn't pre-exist, then you'll have to spell it out for me because I'm not seeing it.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike:If the scriptures don't convince you, what more can I say or add to them that would convince you. Just look at the number of pages on this thread.
He was fore-ordained. He did not pre-exist as a sentient person.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,09:30) Quote (martian @ Aug. 14 2010,17:22) There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
What do you know about translating martian? Do you have any credentials in translating Biblical Hebrew and Greek scriptures?For example do you know what case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you know these things?
If not what right do you have to say John 1:1 is mistranslated?
WJ
Keith,Martian doesn't know anything at all about these things. People who do not have any formal theological training should just put a sock in it. But they won't because they are arrogant. There is only one thing worse than an educated man that is arrogant. It is an uneducated man that is arrogant that tries to pass himself off as something he is not.
Jack
Quote (martian @ Aug. 15 2010,09:22) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,08:14) Quote (Guest @ Aug. 13 2010,19:01) In John 17:5 it clearly states that by Jesus own words, He had a glory with His Father in Heaven before the world was. We do know that He is a Spirit Being now, and that is what He was before…Many will say that Christ went to Heaven Body and Soul. We have however Scripture that says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God……. He was here on earth and He was in Heaven before the world was, emptied Himself and came in the flesh, to die for us…….. I don't think that is to hard to understand. Especially since it is said by Jesus Himself. I don't also think that we should ignore Jesus words….He also has said that He came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father. And other Scriptures too..I thing that John 1:1 also shows us that Jesus who became flesh was called The Word of God….And of course Rev. 19:13-16
Those are all Scripturess that show us what Jesus will come back as…..The Word of God….KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…
Peace to all….
Guest,I was just about to jump out of my skin in praise to God until I reached that part of your statement I put in red bold. John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus is the Word of God. The word “God” is written in the nominative case and is to be translated “God”.
Nominative: God
Genetive: of GodIt is written in the nominative which reads “God.” It says that the Word was God.
the Roo
There are those that base doctrine on English translations as if these translations were inspired themselves. John 1 is a good example and it's mistranslation one reason why their doctrines are flawed.
The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a “version of a version.” In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads, “All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.” As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.” “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used “him” in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew,” published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses “it” in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him” which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, “it” instead of “him.”. The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.” It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, “it” instead of “him.”
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”
The “logos” (Word) of John 1:1 means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of [Yahweh]” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
De 32:39 says, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other “elohim” or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, ” . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.” If the “Word” is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was
no other God with Him, not even the Son.To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/Jn.1.html
Martian,Your post did not deal with my point, no not at all. The word “God” is written in the nominative case. The nominative is written “God” not “of God.” It's that simple!
In your whole entire bluff post you didn't touch upon my point at all. How do the “facts” you presented my point?
the Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
