Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:06)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,21:25)

Or how about Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words?

I think this elucidates the misunderstanding….

* Note: When not part of another verb, or phrase, these translate eimi, “to be,” e.g., Matt. 1:18, or the following: (a) ginomai, “to become,” e.g., Matt. 8:26; (b) huparcho, “to exist,” especially when referring to an already existing condition, e.g., Luke 8:41; Acts 5:4 (2nd part); 16:3; 27:12; Rom. 4:19, AV, “when he was” (RV, “he being”); © echo, “to have,” e.g., Acts 12:15; (d) apecho, “to be away, to be distant,” e.g., Luke 7:6; 24:13; (e) mello, “to be about to,” e.g., Luke 19:4; Acts 21:27,37, AV (RV, “was about to”); (f) sumbaino, “to come to pass, happen,” e.g., Acts 21:35; (g) in Gal. 4:28, the preposition kata, “according to,” is rendered “was,” in the phrase “as Isaac was,” lit., “like Isaac;” as Isaac's birth came by Divine interposition, so does the spiritual birth of every believer.

I.e “eimi” can rightly be translated “to be”, but “en” cannot.

Is,
I do not think that you are understanding me, sorry, I will try again.
The Greek word “en” is translated as “was” and it is in the imperfect tense which normally denotes continual or repeated action but with forms of the verb “eimi” it is simply past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. “en” is a form of the verb “to be.”

There is definetly a difference between A T Roberson and what studylight.org is saying. Have you looked it up on studylight?

Think about it Is, if “en” meant always existed in this verse, why doesn't it mean it in the other hundreds of times it is used in the imperfect tense in John as well as the entire NT?

Blessings,
Kathi

Kathi,
What you quoted from studylight did not appear to me, at least, to be conveying what you are affirming, namely “ALL forms of eimi mean simly past tense”. It was speaking of the forms of the verb eimi translated as “to be”. And as I've already pointed out, “en” does not fall into this category. Perhaps I am mistaken though, can you quote for the the Studylight text from which you've derived the assertion you've made?

April 22, 2009 at 2:21 am#128428

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:06)

There is definetly a difference between A T Roberson and what studylight.org is saying. Have you looked it up on studylight?

That being the case, and i'm not sure it is, I would side with Robertson every time. He is an expert in the truest sense of the word. Yes I did look up study light but could find nothing to support what you've stated. That's why I'm asking for the quote.

April 22, 2009 at 2:24 am#128432

Participant

Is.1:18 asked Lightenup:

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,13:22)

Was A T Roberson, the world's foremost Kione Greek grammarian (and practically all the others), wrong then? I think you've misunderstoood the material in Studylight.

Lightenup replied:

Quote

There is definetly a difference between A T Roberson and what studylight.org is saying. Have you looked it up on studylight?

Is 1:18,
The parsing of verbs by Kathi has gotten pathetic. John's prologue is so simple to understand,

Quote

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word

Our sister Kathi has taken koine (common speak) and raised it to the level of rocket science.

Pathetic!

thinker

April 22, 2009 at 2:28 am#128433

Participant

Is,
First go here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

next look at the Greek words under the John 1:1 verse and see “hn (5713)” which “hn” is the “was” in John 1:1. click on the “(5713)” and read the “Imperfect” section of the pop up. This explanation is referring to the “hn” or “en” as it is transliterated.
Let me know if you followed that.
Kathi

April 22, 2009 at 2:30 am#128434

Participant

Hi Thinker,
This may seem like a worthless semantic argument on the surface of it but it's actually quite important. If i'm right the case for Yeshua eternality is closed, because the text is, in the clearest possible way, affirming that the Word (who was God) always was.

April 22, 2009 at 2:37 am#128435

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:28)

Is,
First go here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

Ye, that's what I had done. I thought there may have been more detail. I'm sorry Kathi but I do not see where you have derived your conclusion that all forms of eimi must be understood to mean simple past tense. Where do you get that from this quote?

Quote

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

The verb form of eimi translated “to be” in the English is not found in John 1:1. I think this note is just highlighting an exception in the grammar to be aware of, but not one that applies directly to the text.

April 22, 2009 at 2:41 am#128437

Participant

Thinker

Do you mind showing me where I am incorrect? Do you think that the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1 is not a verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active and indicative?

Quote

The parsing of verbs by Kathi has gotten pathetic. John's prologue is so simple to understand,

BTW, I think you are not being very kind with your choice of words throughout the day towards me…do you mind being more selective and not choose words to put me or others down. I think that you can say the same things using wiser terminology rather than the derogatory ones you have chosen. Please.
Kathi

April 22, 2009 at 2:50 am#128439

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,22:37)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:28)

Is,
First go here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

Quote

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Is,
So you read the pop-up right? The pop-up was specifically speaking about the “hn” form. I would suppose that if I found the words ” was, were, been” in the imperfect tense this pop-up would say the same thing. I'll try it. I am also suggesting that if there were one of those words ” is, am, are, be, and being” not in the imperfect tense, the pop-up wouldn't say what it does in this instance. Confused yet?

April 22, 2009 at 3:42 am#128450

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:50)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,22:37)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:28)

Is,
First go here: http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

Quote

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Yes, I did read the pop up. The reason I believe that this note is just highlighting a grammatical exception is the explicit and exclusive mention of the form rendered “to be” in the English. The other verb form variants are not mentioned at all. Why mention just one if it applies to ALL? So I don't see this as contradicting what Robertson, and all the Greek scholars I'm aware of, teach, that is “en” in John 1:1a denotes continuous action of the word existing in the past. Anyway, I don'k I can add much else at this point, and i'm taking my kids to see the movie “Monsters and Aliens” now so catchya later.

April 22, 2009 at 4:02 am#128454

http://www.studylight.org/isb….2&ot=bh

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,20:52)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:31)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,18:49)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:45)

NT:2258
h@n
en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were):

Kathi,
An imperfect tense denotes continuous action does it not?

Hi Is,

According to this explanation below from http://www.studylight.org there is a difference in the case of the verb “to be” which “was” is a form of the infinitive “to be.”
I know that I have shown you this before, you may remember.

Quote

Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

source:
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

God bless,
Kathi

Yes, but the Greek word “en” in John 1:1c is not in the form of the verb “to be”, that applies to the word “eimi”. En is the imperfect form of eimi, and certainly denotes continuous action in the past. I'm not making this up Kathi, here look:

Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

Hi Is,
I looked up some verses with the present tense of “eimi” and the pop-up is different and says nothing about the imperfect form at all, it only speaks of the present tense here:

click on estin (5748). Estin is the Greek form of to be which is translated as “means” note that in (5748) the pop-up only speaks of the present tense and says nothing of the imperfect tense.

Then, I found some more imperfect tense forms of “to be” translated as “were” in Matt 4:18 and Mark 1:16.
Matt 4:18 is here:

http://www.studylight.org/isb….1&ncc=1

Find “hsan (5713)” which is translated as “were,” click on (5713) and you will read the same quote in the pop-up window that we found regarding the “en” in John 1:1.

Therefore, words like was and were are the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and will have the (5713) explanation beside them in studylight.org. Forms of the word “eimi” that are in the present tense will have the note (5748) by them. Again, (5713) says this:

Quote

Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

This exception is not for when you read “to be” since “to be” is not a past tense term at all. This pop-up is for the imperfect form of the infinitive “to be” and that is rendered as “was” and “were” that is how you say “to be” in past tense. You don't say “I to be married 27 years ago.” you would say “I was married 27 years ago.” The word “was” is the imperfect form (past tense) of the infinitive “to be.”

You wrote:

Quote

Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

The imperfect form of “eimi” does not mean “always was” otherwize, the “heavens” always were and “all things” always were since in these next two verses the imperfect form of “eimi” exists (see bold letters).

2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
NASU

Rev 4:11

11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they
existed, and were created.”
NASU

Wow, this is not milk here…we are eating the meat Is. Chew carefully!

Enjoy those kids and have fun at the movie.
Later,
Kathi

April 22, 2009 at 8:32 am#128484

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,14:30)

Is 1:18,
There is a better way to go. The text says that “God was (ev) the Word.” It says that “ALL things came into being through Him.” Now our sister Kathi says that this means all “other” things. But John expounded saying,

Quote

and without Him not even one thing came into being which has come into being

It says that not even one thing came into being without Jesus. The word is “oude ev” which translates “not even one.”

thinker

April 22, 2009 at 8:50 am#128486

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:41)

Thinker

Do you mind showing me where I am incorrect? Do you think that the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1 is not a verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active and indicative?

Quote

The parsing of verbs by Kathi has gotten pathetic. John's prologue is so simple to understand,

Kathi,
I apologize for my choice of words. I am not pleased with myself for offending you. However, 1 Timothy 6:4 says that those who argue words create suspicion. Please keep this in mind.

The Greek verb “ev” like all other words must be defined by its context. John said that “Not even one thing” came into being without the Word,

Quote

And without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being

The Greek “oude ev” defines the “ALL things” that immediately precede it.

Here is your rendering of verse 3: All other things were created by Him.

Here is what the text says:

Quote

All things were created by Him and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

This in turn explains how “ev” in verses 1-2 is to be understood. Not one thing came into being without Him. Therefore, the Word ALWAYS WAS.

thinker

April 22, 2009 at 10:33 am#128493

NickHassan

Participant

Hi TT,
So how does the bringing of everything into existence show that the Son did not have a beginning?

April 22, 2009 at 3:14 pm#128508

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,22:33)

Hi TT,
So how does the bringing of everything into existence show that the Son did not have a beginning?

Nick,
Your question is unintelligible because it is a contradiction within itself. You should have asked, “How does the bringing of all other things into existence show that the Son did not have a beginning?” A question like this makes sense.

The name “only begotten Son” in reference to Christ is merely a title that indicates His supremacy. It has nothing to do with His having a beginning. Hebrews says that Jesus obtained the title “begotten Son” AFTER He had purged our sins and sat down at God's right hand (Heb. 1:1-3). The expression “today I have begotten thee” refers to the time Jesus completed our redemption. So if the term “Son” necessarily indicates a beginning for Christ then He did not come into existence until He died and rose again and ascended. This makes no sense.

thinker

April 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm#128511

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,04:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:41)

Thinker

Do you mind showing me where I am incorrect? Do you think that the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1 is not a verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active and indicative?

Quote

The parsing of verbs by Kathi has gotten pathetic. John's prologue is so simple to understand,

Kathi,
I apologize for my choice of words. I am not pleased with myself for offending you. However, 1 Timothy 6:4 says that those who argue words create suspicion. Please keep this in mind.

The Greek verb “ev” like all other words must be defined by its context. John said that “Not even one thing” came into being without the Word,

Quote

And without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being

The Greek “oude ev” defines the “ALL things” that immediately precede it.

Here is your rendering of verse 3: All other things were created by Him.

Here is what the text says:

Quote

All things were created by Him and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

This in turn explains how “ev” in verses 1-2 is to be understood. Not one thing came into being without Him. Therefore, the Word ALWAYS WAS.

thinker

Thinker,
I accept your apology, thank you. Regarding the discussion of the word “was” there are more than myself discussing it and I am discussing it because the trinitarians place a lot of theology on this one word in John 1:1 and I think that it is a shaky foundation. You do not want to build on a shaky foundation do you?

Regarding the term “all things” I suggest to you that the term “all things” is relative. For example read these two verses:

Matt 19:26

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
KJV

Heb 6:18
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie
NASU

On one hand all things are possible with God and on the other hand not all things are possible with God. The term “all things” is relative.

Now see in Colossians 1 and we again see the term “all things” that were created by the Son except we get a clearer picture of the “all things.”

Notice that the “all things” created by Him are IN heaven and ON earth which does not include the realm of heaven or the place-earth. I believe that heaven and earth existed prior to what God made through the Son and the Son was used to create what was IN them and ON them.

Col 1:16-18
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
NASU

Think on these things,
Kathi

April 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm#128512

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,22:33)

Hi TT,
So how does the bringing of everything into existence show that the Son did not have a beginning?

Hi NH

Seriously, did you just ask that question?

He didn't create himself and if he came into being at some time in the past then he would have been one of the created.

Johns words “without him “NOTHING” was made that has been made” or put in other words, “and apart from Him “NOTHING” came into being that has come into being” are unambiguous.

He could have said “without him “everything else” came into being, but he didn't. His choice of words are clear and the context demands any honest reader to take it as such.

I think John would have included something as important as the Word having a begining or comming into existence in the context.

John also had other words that he could have used to describe the Word rather than “Theos”. He could have easily said 'The Word was the Unique One” (monogenēs0), because later when the Word was made flesh John uses the term (monogenēs) which means “Unique one”.

He could have said or “The Word was divine”, (theios) which is an adjective and comes from the word “Theos' and is translated 2 times as “divine” and one time as “Godhead” in the AV.

He could have said, “The Word was the Son, (huios).

He could have said the word was a “thought” or a “plan” or an “intellect' Etc., Etc.

But he didn't say any of those things. He said “The Word was God”.

To say that John means something other than that is an insult to John and his inspired ability as a witness of Jesus to explain who Jesus was before he came in the flesh. Other places like John 20:28 clearly show Johns intent of the Gospel.

To say Jesus came into existence would be making Johns words of none effect especially in light of John 1:1c “and the Word was God“.

John's intent is to show that Jesus is the creator of all things and that he is God.

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18

April 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm#128513

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2009,03:34)

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,04:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,14:41)

Thinker

Do you mind showing me where I am incorrect? Do you think that the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1 is not a verb, third person, singular, imperfect, active and indicative?

Quote

The parsing of verbs by Kathi has gotten pathetic. John's prologue is so simple to understand,

Kathi,
I apologize for my choice of words. I am not pleased with myself for offending you. However, 1 Timothy 6:4 says that those who argue words create suspicion. Please keep this in mind.

The Greek verb “ev” like all other words must be defined by its context. John said that “Not even one thing” came into being without the Word,

Quote

And without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being

The Greek “oude ev” defines the “ALL things” that immediately precede it.

Here is your rendering of verse 3: All other things were created by Him.

Here is what the text says:

Quote

All things were created by Him and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

This in turn explains how “ev” in verses 1-2 is to be understood. Not one thing came into being without Him. Therefore, the Word ALWAYS WAS.

thinker

Regarding the term “all things” I suggest to you that the term “all things” is relative. For example read these two verses:

Matt 19:26

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
KJV

Heb 6:18
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie
NASU

On one hand all things are possible with God and on the other hand not all things are possible with God. The term “all things” is relative.

Now see in Colossians 1 and we again see the term “all things” that were created by the Son except we get a clearer picture of the “all things.”

Think on these things,
Kathi

Hi Kathi

Yes true. But John made sure that we understood what he meant by all things.

The term “without him NOTHING was made that has been made” or “without him NOTHING came into being that has come into being, is as clear as it gets.

Personally I think that the Arians make the words of John of none effect, which are the Words of God.

Blessings WJ

April 22, 2009 at 4:00 pm#128516

Participant

Lightenup said:

Quote

I accept your apology, thank you. Regarding the discussion of the word “was” there are more than myself discussing it and I am discussing it because the trinitarians place a lot of theology on this one word in John 1:1 and I think that it is a shaky foundation. You do not want to build on a shaky foundation do you?

Regarding the term “all things” I suggest to you that the term “all things” is relative.

Kathi,
Thanks for your gracious spirit. It has been my experience that non-trinitarians also have a shaky foundation. For instance, the JW's cling to their understanding of the definite article in John 1:1. They say that the absence of the definite article indicates that the Word was “a god.” However, the definite article is absent also in verse 6. So by JW grammar we should translate it thus,

Quote

There was a man sent from a god whose name was John

John was not sent from “a god.” He was sent from God.

We should build our case in context and not just on articles and verb tense alone.

I agree with you that the expression “all things” is relative. However, it is relative to the context. John said that without the Word “not even one thing” (oude ev) came in to being. Therefore, the Word created ALL THINGS inclusively. It's about context and I saw you and Is.1:18 volleying back and forth over the tense of one verb. Timothy said that arguing over words creates suspicion (1 Timothy 6:4). By this I do not mean to say that we cannot comment on words. But we must do so in context.

I have said that the Word created “all things” inclusively because John immediately clarified by saying, “without Him not even one thing came in to being that came in to being.”

What say you now?

thinker

April 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm#128528

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2009,03:39)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,22:33)

Hi TT,
So how does the bringing of everything into existence show that the Son did not have a beginning?

Hi NH

Seriously, did you just ask that question?

He didn't create himself and if he came into being at some time in the past then he would have been one of the created.

Johns words “without him “NOTHING” was made that has been made” or put in other words, “and apart from Him “NOTHING” came into being that has come into being” are unambiguous.

He could have said “without him “everything else” came into being, but he didn't. His choice of words are clear and the context demands any honest reader to take it as such.

I think John would have included something as important as the Word having a begining or comming into existence in the context.

He could have said or “The Word was divine”, (theios) which is an adjective and comes from the word “Theos' and is translated 2 times as “divine” and one time as “Godhead” in the AV.

He could have said, “The Word was the Son, (huios).

He could have said the word was a “thought” or a “plan” or an “intellect' Etc., Etc.

But he didn't say any of those things. He said “The Word was God”.

To say Jesus came into existence would be making Johns words of none effect especially in light of John 1:1c “and the Word was God“.

John's intent is to show that Jesus is the creator of all things and that he is God.

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18

Hi WJ,
So if he did not create himself how does that show he had no beginning?

It only shows he preceded creation.

He was begotten of God Himself.

April 22, 2009 at 7:03 pm#128532