- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 03 2012,15:10) Hi MB,
Why would you mock scripture?
N
each time you miss quote and interpreting scriptures you mock the word of God
MB did only a presentation of how it should be understood,
but you did not have that ability,
Quote (t8 @ June 02 2012,10:33) Origen was hypothesising by the sound of it.
I also have to admit that it is possible, because we are not taught that we our souls definitely did not exist with the Father beforehand.If scripture is not definate on a subject, then it remains open to speculation and hypothesis. And the fact that it is not definite probably means that it is not important for us to know the truth about that matter now.
Of course there may well be scripture that proves this point is true or not. Not aware of such at this minute.
Hi T8,Excellent post!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2012,12:42) I don't know to what you refer, but even the Trinitarians Keith and Jack speak the scriptural truth some of the time, right? Right now I'm trying to show you how senseless it is to believe that the Word was with the same God it was.
It seems that you're whole “concept that came to you one night” stems from your blatant misunderstanding of John 1:1.
Re-read my sample sentences again. Tell me which one of them makes any sense.
Hi Mike,Are you saying that Scripture, as written in John 1:1, does not make sense to you?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 03 2012,23:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2012,12:42) I don't know to what you refer, but even the Trinitarians Keith and Jack speak the scriptural truth some of the time, right? Right now I'm trying to show you how senseless it is to believe that the Word was with the same God it was.
It seems that you're whole “concept that came to you one night” stems from your blatant misunderstanding of John 1:1.
Re-read my sample sentences again. Tell me which one of them makes any sense.
Hi Mike,Are you saying that Scripture, as written in John 1:1, does not make sense to you?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjit seems that you talk like someone who does know please show it ,
side by side ;I mean the scripture John 1;1 and then your identification of all the participants in it ;
and then we see if you understand it rightly
Quote (terraricca @ June 03 2012,16:33) Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2012,23:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 03 2012,12:42) I don't know to what you refer, but even the Trinitarians Keith and Jack speak the scriptural truth some of the time, right? Right now I'm trying to show you how senseless it is to believe that the Word was with the same God it was.
It seems that you're whole “concept that came to you one night” stems from your blatant misunderstanding of John 1:1.
Re-read my sample sentences again. Tell me which one of them makes any sense.
Hi Mike,Are you saying that Scripture, as written in John 1:1, does not make sense to you?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjit seems that you talk like someone who does know please show it ,
side by side ;I mean the scripture John 1;1 and then your identification of all the participants in it ;
and then we see if you understand it rightly
Hi Pierre,In the beginning was the HolySpirit,
and the HolySpirit was with God,
and the HolySpirit was God.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 02 2012,23:02) Hi Mike, Are you saying that Scripture, as written in John 1:1, does not make sense to you?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2012,20:02) You would correct scripture so it makes sense to you?
Ed and Nick,Is there only ONE possible translation of John 1:1c? MUST the Greek words be translated as “the Word was THE God?
From the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.Are you guys able to understand that there are THREE different, faithful ways to translate 1:1c? Here are the three ways:
1. the god – meaning that God was with Himself and later became flesh
2. a god – meaning that the Word was also a mighty being, but not THE god he was with
3. god qualitatively – which would be similar to saying, In the beginning, Cain was with THE adam (the man), and Cain was adam (of mankind).
(A fourth option of “the Word was divine”, or “the Word was God-like”, is ruled out by Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which says: The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”)
And of the three remaining possibilities, there is only ONE of these possible translations that the 25 NETNotes scholars eliminate:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)Can you guys grasp this simple point they made? Are you able to understand that God cannot possibly be said to be with God? You have grown up reading and believing “the Word was God”. It is now so hard set in your psyches that it is hard for you to let it go. And because of your insistence upon this flawed and illogical translation of 1:1c, you have gone to great and even more illogical steps to iron out your doctrines.
Here is some more information for your consideration:
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Harris and Dodd are two more TRINITARIAN Greek experts who acknowledge the possible translation of “a god”.
Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God…. The true God, then, is The God (ho theos).”
Origen is saying that John knew exactly what he was doing by preceding only ONE of the theos mentioned with the definite article “the”. Had John wanted to teach that the Word was with THE god and was THE god, he would have written it that way.
At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness. Rodney J. Decker stated, “it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.”
In case you forgot, Colwell's Rule is the one that says we can add the definite article in 1:1c, causing a translation of “THE god”, or “God”. Are you able to see that the only reason “the Word was God” is even in our English Bibles is because this rule “has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ”? It is there because the majority of English translators were Trinitarians, and wanted to FORCE this scripture to teach that Jesus was God Himself – despite the illogical consequence of 1:1b, which would say that God was with God. Refer back to the first NETNotes info I quoted above, and you'll see that Colwell's rule “merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.”
The rendering as “a god” is justified by some non-trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which they claim has a similar grammatical construction. “The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.”
Are you able to see that in the similar construction of Acts 28:6, all English Bibles render “a god” instead of “THE god”, or “God”? So why do so many people fault an “a god” translation of 1:1c, but readily accept “a god” in 28:6?
Listen guys, there is MUCH more information I could post on this subject, such as the first language into which the Greek scriptures were translated, that used indefinite articles like we do, was the Coptic language. And in the Coptic translation of 1:1c, it reads “a god”. But I list this very small bit of information in an effort to get you guys to at least acknowledge the possibility of “the Word was a god”.
Will you do that honest thing? Or will you ignore the FACTS of the matter, and continue to INSIST upon “the Word was God” – despite the facts of the matter?
Hi Mike,
“For in the multitude of dreams and many words
there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.” (Eccl 5:7)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed,
Will you honor my request? Will your pride allow you to acknowledge the grammatical possibility of “the Word was a god”?
Or will you bury your head in the sand and just continue to pretend that “a god” is acceptable for Acts 28:6, but not for John 1:1?
(Note: I'm not asking you to change your preference – but only to acknowledge the FACT that “a god” is one of the three faithful possibilities of 1:1c. Will you do that?)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 04 2012,02:45) Hi Ed, Will you honor my request? Will your pride allow you to acknowledge the grammatical possibility of “the Word was a god”?
Or will you bury your head in the sand and just continue to pretend that “a god” is acceptable for Acts 28:6, but not for John 1:1?
(Note: I'm not asking you to change your preference – but only to acknowledge the FACT that “a god” is one of the three faithful possibilities of 1:1c. Will you do that?)
Hi Mike,Isaiah 44:8 discounts 'a god' as a possibility.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on that.It is only because you have been taught
incorrectly, that you miss the fact that
“The Word” refers to God's HolySpirit.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Mike,
The people on the island of Melita were superstitious
and they 'thought' Paul to be a god; but we
both know he wasn't, right Mike?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgAh, but was it the people on the island of Malta who wrote the book of Acts? Or was it the apostle Luke who conveyed to us that the islanders thought Paul was a god?
Hi Mike,
I believe it was Luke the wrote the book of Acts.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 03 2012,09:51) Hi Mike, Isaiah 44:8 discounts 'a god' as a possibility.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on that
Doesn't that scripture also discount Jehovah from being “the God of gods”, or “the Most High God”? Yet He is those things, right?
Quote (Ed J @ June 03 2012,09:51) It is only because you have been taught
incorrectly, that you miss the fact that
“The Word” refers to God's HolySpirit.
Actually Ed, I was taught “the Word was God” just like you. But since that never aligned with the rest of the scriptures, I did my own research into this one little verse, and have learned the truth of the matter.But I understand that what you were taught feels comfortable to you, like a broken in pair of shoes. I understand that you prefer that comfort over the truth of the matter.
Hi MB,
But you are far from the truth.
You have only satisfied greek logic which reigns for you.It produces mindless fluff.
Nick,
The question was: Do you acknowledge “a god” as a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Nick,
The information is all right there before your very eyes. The FACT is that in Acts 28:6 (and hundreds of other scriptures), English translators have a choice of translating “God”, or “a god”.
The FACT is that they have that very same choice in John 1:1.
Do you acknowledge this FACT? Or do you prefer to keep playing games?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
