- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 19 2013,14:09) Hi T8, Name-calling is not a very effective way of trying to convince someone your argument is right.
I must have missed something. What name did I call you Ed J? (Besides Ed J of course.) I just can't see where I called you names or a name.Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 19 2013,14:10) So then, is Ephesians 4:32 in the “AKJV Bible” translated wrong and Ed J right? Ed J merely
brings the deeper meanings of GOD forth. You must become the niceness you wish to portray!
If that were true Ed J, then when I said that Jesus said that Judas was a devil, my words followed suit with the AKJV. Yet you clearly said it didn't mean what I said, yet what I said is what the AKJV says.You are not off the hook that easy.
Please explain. Remember humility is good and humility admits when one makes a mistake.
I said that this and you said it was wrong.
Let's wind the tape back.
I said:
Quote Ed J. You do not understand. I am talking about the time Jesus said, “one of you is devil” referring to Judas Iscariot.
There is no definite article with devil. Yet most have the common sense to not make it definite as many do with the Word being God. Why? Because people have invested much in the Jesus is God and part of a Trinity theology. Whereas, there is no doctrine that says that Judas was the Devil.
Clearly this is how bias works.
You said:Quote Hi T8, No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)Whose quote regarding Judas Iscariot and what Jesus said about him matches the AKJV the most. I will give you a clue. It is not you.
If you are going to say that the AKJV is the most perfect or a perfect translation, then you shoot yourself in the foot when you argue against any AKJV translated verse. This is what you did.
You have to be wrong on at least your stance of the AKJV or the way you oppose what I said about Judas. You can't have it both ways, because you opposed my view which happened to be the AKJV view too.
If you just admit you were wrong, I will leave it at that.
Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:
See the “nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil'” part?
That means you clearly disagree with the AKJV.John 6:70 (AKJV)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?See that. According to you the AKJV is wrong and according to you the AKJV is perfect or the most perfect translation out there.
This is oxymoronic Ed J.
This is not the first instance of your teaching being contradictory and putting you into disrepute.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,20:51) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 19 2013,14:09) Hi T8, Name-calling is not a very effective way of trying to convince someone your argument is right.
I must have missed something. What name did I call you Ed J? (Besides Ed J of course.) I just can't see where I called you names or a name.
Saying things like this is not name-calling to YOU?Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,13:24) you are deluded Quote (t8 @ Aug. 18 2013,17:48) Just as an alcoholic
Well I consider it as such, and to resort such practices
show a weakness on your part to help establish truth.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:05) If that were true Ed J, then when I said that Jesus said that Judas was a devil, my words followed suit with the AKJV. Yet you clearly said it didn't mean what I said, yet what I said is what the AKJV says. You are not off the hook that easy.
Please explain.
I have explained here:Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,16:32) Hi T8, No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:05) I said that this and you said it was wrong.
No I said was:“T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.
But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE IT DOES NOT!”God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:05) If you just admit you were wrong, I will leave it at that.
I challenge you to keep it coming, because you cannot prove what I did not say.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:10) Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:according to you the AKJV is perfect
This is not the first instance of your teaching being contradictory and putting you into disrepute.
Hi T8,It is your understanding is contradictory, not my words;
your putting your 'spin' on them and then call them wrong.
Remember we talked about this before. (Here's the Link)“disrepute?” – more name-calling huh? I see you are still
attempting to argue over a misconception.
Here is what I actually said:To the English-speaking world, the AKJV Bible has become the standard because of the strict parameters that were put in place requiring a “word for word” translation; avoiding perceptual interpretations that may alter what the manuscript actually meant. They also had to agree upon each and every word of the translation. Whenever a word had two or more possible meanings the most popular meaning was inscribed into the text; with the second choice italicized and also listed at the end of the verse. One such example is in 1Thess. 4:15 where the word prevent is inserted into the text while precede is listed as an alternative word at the end of the verse.
Because of the concise and sound translation into English which is found in the AKJV, resource material such as the Strong’s Concordance complements the AKJV Bible by defining each word in its original language; helping to present a more comprehensive look into God’s word making it the study standard of choice for the more serious student of Scripture. The Young’s Concordance defines each word based only upon its usage in the texts (according to Mr.Young); because of this it is used less. It is therefore rare to find scholarly theologians, modern and ancient and alike, not using the AKJV Bible for in depth study based upon these reasons. The AKJV is, by default, the standard by which all other English versions (translations) of the Bible are compared.
English as we speak today, uses PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE tenses expressed separately; this is not so with the 1611 King’s English. It seemed, therefore that since GOD isn’t limited by time or space, the old English from the King James era was perfect for translating “word for word”. Just as the arts embrace Shakespearian writings for their intrinsic value and superior prose, the King James translation has some of these qualities, being romantic and poetic as well. Words from the King James era also have multiple tenses built right into them for a more exact “word for word” translation.
Let’s take a look at a few examples of multiple tense words: holpen, meetest and saith. Saith means: “is said and says”, meetest means: “is met, meets, and will meet”, and holpen means: “is helped and will help”. The original texts have many instances where modern vernacular lacks the clarity of single words containing past, present, or future tenses combined.
In modern English, the word “you” lacks exactness of meaning and is rarely used in the AKJV Bible. Modern usage of the word “you” could mean “an individual”, “a couple of people”, or even “a large group of people”. 1611 lexicon is more precise with words such as “Ye” used for a group and “Thou” for an individual. Also words like thy, thee, and thine are among many such words used in the AKJV Bible. Without understanding of the originally written texts, the current reader wanting a modern word for word translation usually overlooks these “technicalities”.
HolyCityBibleCode Pages 36-37
But you say that I am wrong about Jesus saying “one of you is a devil” regarding Judas.
Yet that is what the AKJV says.So is the AKJV wrong?
If not, then why am I wrong if I repeat and support the same thing as what the AKJV said?Please answer or you will have to put on some heat resistant underwear because you will be sitting on the Hot Seat.
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:50) “disrepute?” – more name-calling huh? I see you are still
attempting to argue over a misconception.
Here is what I actually said:
Ed J. Name calling is when you call people names. It is not when you say a person did a silly thing or put himself into disrepute.Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:49) “T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.
But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE IT DOES NOT!”
Stop avoiding the question.You said this. You are against the AKJV. Please explain why you are against what you consider a perfect translation.
Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT callingJudas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil'The relevant statement you made after I cut off the fat is this:
No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'a devilYet the AKJV does.
EXPLAIN THIS CONTRADICTION PLEASE
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:53) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:50) “disrepute?” – more name-calling huh? I see you are still
attempting to argue over a misconception.
Here is what I actually said:
Ed J. Name calling is when you call people names. It is not when you say a person did a silly thing or put himself into disrepute.
I disagreeQuote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,21:52)
But you say that I am wrong about Jesus saying “one of you is a devil” regarding Judas.
Yet that is what the AKJV says.So is the AKJV wrong?
If not, then why am I wrong if I repeat and support the same thing as what the AKJV said?Please answer or you will have to put on some heat resistant underwear because you will be sitting on the Hot Seat.
What YOU said was: 'one of you is devil'
What I said was: (which is on topic)“T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.
But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE THAT IT DOES NOT!”απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
Remember in the Hot-Seat I provide no information to you.
All you will get is “Yes” – “No” – “I don't Know”.
But you are welcome to try.
If you want to discuss the matter like Christian brothers – count me in.
But if you are going to attempt to bully me, count me out.
I will not argue over misconceptions!“And I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover:
for they are a rebellious house. But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth,
let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.” (Ezekiel 3:26-27)Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2013,22:00) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,00:49) “T8 claims there is a quantitative state of 'gods' and is attempting to use John 6:70 to bolster his premise.
But when we examine his example to see if it exemplifies what he claims, WE SEE IT DOES NOT!”
Stop avoiding the question.You said this. You are against the AKJV. Please explain why you are against what you consider a perfect translation.
Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT callingJudas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil'The relevant statement you made after I cut off the fat is this:
No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'a devilYet the AKJV does.
EXPLAIN THIS CONTRADICTION PLEASE
I see that you are still trying to ARGUE over misconceptions.
I have already explained why Jesus was not calling Judas
'the devil' nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' here:Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2013,16:32) Hi T8, No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil'
nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' – Take a look at what the Greek ACTUAL SAYS:απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους ουκ εγω υμας τους δωδεκα εξελεξαμην “και εξ υμων εις διαβολος εστιν”
Jesus answered them, I quite a exelexamin upon you the twelve, and of you to present devil'one of you is devil' -NO- “one of you to present devil
“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat
of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgJesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve , and one of you is(G2076) a devil? He spake of
Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve” (John 6:70-71)You already know that the Greek has no indefinite articles.
But what you don't know is: what the word is is.G2076 ἐστί es-tee' (esti):
are, belong, call, come, consistThird person singular present indicative of eimi; he (she or it) is; also (with neuter plural)
they are — are, be(-long), call, X can(-not), COME, consisteth, X dure for a while, + follow, X have,
(that) is (to say), make, meaneth, X must needs, + profit, + remaineth, + wrestle.see GREEK eimi
Remember, 'i am' or ego eimi {εγω ειμι} is the devil: (Link)
one of you is a devil -No- one of you presents devilGod bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi T8,
I won't argue over misconceptions, but what I will do is argue about definitions of words.
For example: You may ask me is there more than one God besides YHVH. I will say “No”.
You may believe that there is (or are) based on a different definition of the word “God”.So I may have to reference this post, FOR YOU, if you
decide to ask me “Yes” “No” questions in the Hot-Seat.I may answer “No” and YOU may believe the answer is really “Yes”, but my
“No” answer may be nothing more than you defining a word differently then me.
But in the Hot-Seat I may elect not to tell you “WHY” I gave you the answer I gave. (<– because I will not be bullied!)In the “Hot-Seat” you will have to figure it out for yourself, with absolutely NO
help from me, because you are beyond Christian communication at that point. (<– your goal then is to bully me into submission)I have seen you twice now refuse to consider my words and
instead elect to bully me into submission in the “Hot-Seat.”
BUT YOU 'FAILED' ON BOTH ATTEMPTS, DIDN'T YOU?Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBack to the topic.
What the translators of the Coptic did has no bearing on what John 1:1 says in the Greek.
That is like you posting the N.W.T. and claim that it proves your point; clearly it doesn't!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 20 2013,01:47) Back to the topic. What the translators of the Coptic did has no bearing on what John 1:1 says in the Greek.
That is like you posting the N.W.T. and claim that it proves your point; clearly it doesn't!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You may next say: “Mike and Pierre both agree with me” as if that
is somehow evidence of you being right – clearly that idea is wrong!That would be yet another attempt of YOU to argue over a
misconception, this time over the meaning of Matthew 18:16.
Like you are currently doing over a misconception of John 1:1.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2013,17:42) Hi Everyone, All this wrangling is based on the presumption that
Jesus (according to the traditions of men) is “The Word”.
When one realizes that The Word is really the HolySpirit, then these
wranglings to make everything else adjust to that presupposition fade away.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi:I agree with Ed that all the wrangling is because of the presumption that “the Logos” is Jesus. It in fact pertains to him, but he is not “a god” or “God” or “the God”. He is a man. Through His Word God has shown us His character. And so, John 1c should be “God” or “the God”.
Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
