- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 24 2013,12:59) If you don't believe #2 why were you arguing for its authenticity
and subsequently tiled me for challenging your understanding of a Qualitative application?
There is no truth in these words of your Edj.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 24 2013,13:13) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 24 2013,12:59) 2) 'one of you is a devil'
If you don't believe #2 why were you arguing for its authenticity
and subsequently tiled me for challenging your understanding of a Qualitative application?
There is no truth in these words of your Edj.
No?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,17:47) Hi T8, Which is it?
John 6:70 (AKJV)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”John 6:70 (EJV = Ed J Version)
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devilQuote (david @ Nov. 22 2013,12:26) Mike, that won't happen. It would be interesting if it did. After minutes of research, I am going to confidently say to kerwin:
–Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that uses the indefinite article!!
And equally important:
–Coptic was the only language that uses indefinite articles that was produced while koine Greek was spoken.
Anyway….Coptic.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 09 2013,19:37) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 08 2013,04:04) BTW, where are the scriptures that say that each of these are 'a god' as opposed to just 'theos'? Jesus. Satan. Gabriel. Michael. Molech. Dagon. Asteroth. Chemosh.
Hopefully that is not too much work, but would appreciate these 8 or so scriptures where these are translated as each being 'a god'.
It is a lot of work, t8. But I've done the work, and you are putting it off. And although I find it hard to believe that you would sit here and argue with me about it without first doing the work, here goes………..1. Chemosh. Pierre has just listed a scripture.
2. Jesus. Hebrews 1:8, for one.
3. Satan. 2 Kings 1:6 and 2 Cor 4:4.
4. Gabriel and Michael are gods by association. See Judges 13:21-22, where Manoah, knowing he had seen the angel of Jehovah, said, “We have seen a god!” Also, compare Genesis 32, where Jacob wrestled with an angel of God (Hosea 12:4), yet said he had seen a god face to face. (There are other scriptures where Jacob encountered angels and called them gods.)Or you can see scriptures like Psalm 8:5, where David said that God made us lower than the gods, and Paul understood that to mean He made us lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:7)
The bottom line is that spirit sons of God were called gods in many scriptures.
5. Dagon. See Judges 16:23.
6. As for the rest:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Not only is this Jehovah Himself calling these other ones gods, but He uses the plural word “elohim” for all three of them, instead of the singular “el”. And I'm sure you know that the plural in Hebrew either means more than one, or a majestic one.
So I think I've covered all of them. I reject your argument that a group of them being called gods doesn't mean one of them is a god……… unless you can show me this concept somewhere else. For example, if you could show me that a group of leaders can be called “kings”, while one of them can't individually be called “a king”, then I will give that concept a better listen.
t8, the bottom line of this whole thing is that there are indeed many gods mentioned in the scriptures. And since the scriptures don't say any of them are “false gods”, why would YOU say it?
I'm having this discussion in three threads right now. If you'd like to discuss it more, you can join in the discussion here or here.
As Mike mentioned many gods and gave this verse as part of his support:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Let me expand on that and suggest that there could be a god or several gods for each and every nation…isn't the bottom line that Jehovah is the God of Israel in the OT and the God of the church which has people from every nation and tribe and defeats all other gods in the end? So if the Father is a god and the Son is a god and Chemosh is a god and Molech is a god…in the end-for us there is one god who is God the Father and one god who is Jesus Christ our Lord. They are together our eternal salvation and eternal rule, to whom receive the blessing, the honor, the praise, the glory, and the might from EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them.
Ultimately which gods always existed?? I believe those who always existed are the Father AND the Son…the Son was eternally within the Father and then was begotten from the Father before creation. The Son is called the only begotten god/God. The Son is the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. Both are the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega. Both are called by the name of Jehovah which means self-existent.
Worship Jehovah who is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords.
Deut 10:17
For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 25 2013,01:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 09 2013,19:37) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 08 2013,04:04) BTW, where are the scriptures that say that each of these are 'a god' as opposed to just 'theos'? Jesus. Satan. Gabriel. Michael. Molech. Dagon. Asteroth. Chemosh.
Hopefully that is not too much work, but would appreciate these 8 or so scriptures where these are translated as each being 'a god'.
It is a lot of work, t8. But I've done the work, and you are putting it off. And although I find it hard to believe that you would sit here and argue with me about it without first doing the work, here goes………..1. Chemosh. Pierre has just listed a scripture.
2. Jesus. Hebrews 1:8, for one.
3. Satan. 2 Kings 1:6 and 2 Cor 4:4.
4. Gabriel and Michael are gods by association. See Judges 13:21-22, where Manoah, knowing he had seen the angel of Jehovah, said, “We have seen a god!” Also, compare Genesis 32, where Jacob wrestled with an angel of God (Hosea 12:4), yet said he had seen a god face to face. (There are other scriptures where Jacob encountered angels and called them gods.)Or you can see scriptures like Psalm 8:5, where David said that God made us lower than the gods, and Paul understood that to mean He made us lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:7)
The bottom line is that spirit sons of God were called gods in many scriptures.
5. Dagon. See Judges 16:23.
6. As for the rest:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Not only is this Jehovah Himself calling these other ones gods, but He uses the plural word “elohim” for all three of them, instead of the singular “el”. And I'm sure you know that the plural in Hebrew either means more than one, or a majestic one.
So I think I've covered all of them. I reject your argument that a group of them being called gods doesn't mean one of them is a god……… unless you can show me this concept somewhere else. For example, if you could show me that a group of leaders can be called “kings”, while one of them can't individually be called “a king”, then I will give that concept a better listen.
t8, the bottom line of this whole thing is that there are indeed many gods mentioned in the scriptures. And since the scriptures don't say any of them are “false gods”, why would YOU say it?
I'm having this discussion in three threads right now. If you'd like to discuss it more, you can join in the discussion here or here.
As Mike mentioned many gods and gave this verse as part of his support:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Let me expand on that and suggest that there could be a god or several gods for each and every nation…isn't the bottom line that Jehovah is the God of Israel in the OT and the God of the church which has people from every nation and tribe and defeats all other gods in the end? So if the Father is a god and the Son is a god and Chemosh is a god and Molech is a god…in the end-for us there is one god who is God the Father and one god who is Jesus Christ our Lord. They are together our eternal salvation and eternal rule, to whom receive the blessing, the honor, the praise, the glory, and the might from EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them.
Ultimately which gods always existed?? I believe those who always existed are the Father AND the Son…the Son was eternally within the Father and then was begotten from the Father before creation. The Son is called the only begotten god/God. The Son is the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning. Both are the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega. Both are called by the name of Jehovah which means self-existent.
Worship Jehovah who is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords.
Deut 10:17
For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.
KathyQuote Both are the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega. yes this is true ;but with one slide difference in time the son beginning starts at his creation and so does not encompasses the father ,while the father does include the son ,
I'm a little slow. What does any of this have to do with Coptic?
Aren't there 200 other threads where this topic is likely being discussed?
David the reason there are 200 threads about this topic is because the bottom line of all of them is that there are two who are a god that are for us and all the rest are not for us. It is not determined by the 'a' in the coptic translation. So when you or anyone starts a thread about the 'a' in John 1:1c, you will likely get someone who mentions the bottom line in hopes to get people to stop squabbling about this insignificant detail and focus on what is the main thing.
Squabbling over the possibility of an 'a' in John 1:1c is vanity…pointless…a waste of time.
Pierre,
I will address this with you here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….025;r=1Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,13:46) As Mike mentioned many gods and gave this verse as part of his support:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Let me expand on that and suggest that there could be a god or several gods for each and every nation…isn't the bottom line that Jehovah is the God of Israel in the OT and the God of the church which has people from every nation and tribe and defeats all other gods in the end? So if the Father is a god and the Son is a god and Chemosh is a god and Molech is a god…in the end-for us there is one god who is God the Father and one god who is Jesus Christ our Lord. They are together our eternal salvation and eternal rule, to whom receive the blessing, the honor, the praise, the glory, and the might from EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them.
I agree with the part I quoted, Kathi.David, this stuff is related, since accepting that the scriptures truly teach of many different gods might make it easier for some of the die-hards to accept that Jesus is but one of those many gods, and therefore, “a god” who was WITH “THE god” in the beginning.
The Coptics have it right. I once read a blog from a fellow from Greece. He said that although the Trinity is just as big there as it is here, they don't use John 1:1 as a Trinity proof text in Greece…. because Greek speaking people all understand that John never intended to teach that our one and only Almighty God was WITH our one and only Almighty God in the beginning. He said it is understood by Greek speaking people that there are TWO gods mentioned in John 1:1 – one of whom was with the other.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,04:31) David the reason there are 200 threads about this topic is because the bottom line of all of them is that there are two who are a god that are for us and all the rest are not for us. It is not determined by the 'a' in the coptic translation. So when you or anyone starts a thread about the 'a' in John 1:1c, you will likely get someone who mentions the bottom line in hopes to get people to stop squabbling about this insignificant detail and focus on what is the main thing. Squabbling over the possibility of an 'a' in John 1:1c is vanity…pointless…a waste of time.
Hey LU,First, I've never started any of these Coptic threads.
Several times in the past two years I've said that John 1:1 could go either way grammatically, and that it's bias one way or the other that determines the translation.
John 1:1c is a diversion, a hobby, an interest. It doesn't have to have meaning. There are far more trivial things on this forum. And while you may consider john 1:1c trivial and pointless, many on here seem like they would argue it forever, to the death.
I came to the conclusion 2 years ago that it really can go either way grammatically. Which, yes, does make it somewhat pointless arguing. Which is why the Coptic is so interesting! It's a very unique perspective and different approach. And it doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that it's NOT clear one way or the other.
I would say this:
LU, if it's pointless to discuss the Coptic, then don't discuss it.
And if you want to discuss topic X or Y, why not do it in another thread?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,09:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,13:46) As Mike mentioned many gods and gave this verse as part of his support:
1 Kings 11:33
I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me………Let me expand on that and suggest that there could be a god or several gods for each and every nation…isn't the bottom line that Jehovah is the God of Israel in the OT and the God of the church which has people from every nation and tribe and defeats all other gods in the end? So if the Father is a god and the Son is a god and Chemosh is a god and Molech is a god…in the end-for us there is one god who is God the Father and one god who is Jesus Christ our Lord. They are together our eternal salvation and eternal rule, to whom receive the blessing, the honor, the praise, the glory, and the might from EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them.
I agree with the part I quoted, Kathi.David, this stuff is related, since accepting that the scriptures truly teach of many different gods might make it easier for some of the die-hards to accept that Jesus is but one of those many gods, and therefore, “a god” who was WITH “THE god” in the beginning.
The Coptics have it right. I once read a blog from a fellow from Greece. He said that although the Trinity is just as big there as it is here, they don't use John 1:1 as a Trinity proof text in Greece…. because Greek speaking people all understand that John never intended to teach that our one and only Almighty God was WITH our one and only Almighty God in the beginning. He said it is understood by Greek speaking people that there are TWO gods mentioned in John 1:1 – one of whom was with the other.
It's really not related. This topic isn't “the trinity” where you can discuss 1000 different scriptures.If someone asks: how should john 1:1c be translated, it's rather pointless to quote your favorite anti-trinity scripture because someone else could just quote a trinity scripture, and where have we gotten?
The reason these 4 page digressions or offshoots disturb me is because I often use this site as a study aid or come back to it. So when I have to wade through 10 pages of randomness to find 1 page that is on topic, it's irritating.
I'm actually beginning to wonder what the point of topics are at all?
Why not just have one giant thread where people can post whatever they want?
Quote The Coptics have it right. I once read a blog from a fellow from Greece. He said that although the Trinity is just as big there as it is here, they don't use John 1:1 as a Trinity proof text in Greece…. because Greek speaking people all understand that John never intended to teach that our one and only Almighty God was WITH our one and only Almighty God in the beginning. He said it is understood by Greek speaking people that there are TWO gods mentioned in John 1:1 – one of whom was with the other.
–mikeFinding someone who speaks ancient Coptic or koine Greek is impossible. It would be interesting to speak with someone who speaks the modern languages, but languages change. It would be more interesting to know what ancient people who lived in the THIRD CENTURY and who SPOKE KOINE GREEK and who USED THEIR ALPHABET and who HAD AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE in their language thought of John 1:1.
Quote I'm having this discussion in three threads right now. If you'd like to discuss it more, you can join in the discussion here or here. Mike. This is an interesting topic. But I'm having difficulty finding the scattered pages where it is discussed. It should perhaps have its own thread. :-). I'd actually like to comment on this but the two links, it doesn't seem like you are really discussing this topic in those threads any more.
Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2013,14:48) Hey LU, First, I've never started any of these Coptic threads.
Several times in the past two years
I've said that John 1:1 could go either way grammatically,
and that it's bias one way or the other that determines the translation.
Hi David,It is ALWAYS bias to add the “a” (indefinite article) and NEVER bias to leave it out;
that is in “English” anyways; don't know about the Coptic (Sahidic or Bohairic Coptic).Equally adding the definite article (THE) to any “English” translation
would be “Translator Bias” as well; do you agree “Yes” or “No”? (<– please answer this question David)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi David and especially T8:
So much for trying to build doctrine on the Sahidic Coptic for John 1:1
“John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation “God the only Son”” (Link)
It is therefore bias to proclaim John 1:1 any differently than in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Nov. 24 2013,13:13) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 24 2013,12:59) If you don't believe #2 why were you arguing for its authenticity
and subsequently tiled me for challenging your understanding of a Qualitative application?
There is no truth in these words of your Edj.
It's also true that you refused to discuss the matter like Adults,
and instead insisted that I bend the knee to baal; which of course “I”
will never do because God did not place you above me here or anywhere else!Your Kangaroo Court is/was clearly a SHAM! as I actually answered your question “twice”
Ed J
Hi T8,
If you don't want me posting here any more just say so…
Ed J, I T8 don't want you posting on my forum any more. (<– well, do you have the balls to say this?)
Because If not, I will be questioning your ability to proffer yourself as being Judicially unbiased till the bitter end.I guess that means you will need to invent 4 more infractions – or –
remove the unwarranted tile and interact as brothers – instead of as enemies.Your brother
in Christ,
Ed JQuote (Ed J @ Nov. 26 2013,18:26) Hi T8, If you don't want me posting here any more just say so…
Ed J, I T8 don't want you posting on my forum any more. (<– well, do you have the balls to say this?)
Because If not, I will be questioning your ability to proffer yourself as being Judicially unbiased till the bitter end.I guess that means you will need to invent 4 more infractions – or –
remove the unwarranted tile and interact as brothers – instead of as enemies.Your brother
in Christ,
Ed J
Isaiah 27:4-5 Fury is not in me(Ed J): who would set the briers and thorns against me(Ed J) in battle?
I would go through them, I would burn them together. 5 Or let him take hold of my strength,
that he(T8) may make peace with me; and he(T8) shall make peace with me.
Psalms 120:7 I for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.B'shem
YHVHQuote (david @ Nov. 25 2013,22:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,04:31) David the reason there are 200 threads about this topic is because the bottom line of all of them is that there are two who are a god that are for us and all the rest are not for us. It is not determined by the 'a' in the coptic translation. So when you or anyone starts a thread about the 'a' in John 1:1c, you will likely get someone who mentions the bottom line in hopes to get people to stop squabbling about this insignificant detail and focus on what is the main thing. Squabbling over the possibility of an 'a' in John 1:1c is vanity…pointless…a waste of time.
Hey LU,First, I've never started any of these Coptic threads.
Several times in the past two years I've said that John 1:1 could go either way grammatically, and that it's bias one way or the other that determines the translation.
John 1:1c is a diversion, a hobby, an interest. It doesn't have to have meaning. There are far more trivial things on this forum. And while you may consider john 1:1c trivial and pointless, many on here seem like they would argue it forever, to the death.
I came to the conclusion 2 years ago that it really can go either way grammatically. Which, yes, does make it somewhat pointless arguing. Which is why the Coptic is so interesting! It's a very unique perspective and different approach. And it doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that it's NOT clear one way or the other.
I would say this:
LU, if it's pointless to discuss the Coptic, then don't discuss it.
And if you want to discuss topic X or Y, why not do it in another thread?
David,
I thought this topic was about the addition of the 'a' in John 1:1 as per the Coptic translation. I believe that is what I addressed in my post.I suggest to you to begin to build a database for what data you want to collect and ask for others to contribute to it. I have done so in a number of topics and have no problem finding what I want in those.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
