- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2013,05:38) Thanks for posting that, t8. I'm sure much of it sounds familiar by now. 
The thing to really remember is that the Coptic language, like English, uses an indefinite article. It is the first language into which the NT was translated that does so.
And that means that the first chance anyone ever got at translating John 1:1c as “a god”……….. THEY DID IT!
That is important to remember.
(I do wonder why you had to add a “disclaimer” to make sure no one thought you were trying to “prove the NWT”.
I don't agree with every interpretation of scripture that the JWs have, but the NWT is a fine and accurate translation of the scriptures. If you want to challenge the JWs on some of their beliefs, then do that. But why would you fault the NWT? Do you fault the KJV, NASB, NRSV, or the NIV based solely on the fact that Trinitarians and Catholics use them?)
Yes it is familiar.I added in the diclaimer because as I have said before, when you say to people, “the Word was a god”, they do not tend to read that in a qualitative sense but take it the same way as the Word was another actual God alongside the original one. And for that reason, even if it was grammatically possible, it doesn't really convey the qualitative meaning to people today, even if it did back when the Sahidic Coptic translation was first penned.
As I said before, when we say in English that Judas was a devil, we understand that qualitatively, but when we say, the Word was a god, people have a different slant on it.
That is why I have for a long time preferred, 'the Word was divine' or some other interpretation that brings out the qualitative meaning to the point that you cannot misconstrue it.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,15:41) Satan is losing his grip on this deception and people are starting to wake up
Agreed. I believe this is due in no small part to websites like yours, and sites where we can read what the Greek and Hebrew texts actually say.The people searching for truth in this matter now have all the weapons they need. That is a far cry from when no one was allowed to own a Bible – or even from when we all had to rely on our Trinitarian-trained pastor to explain to us why the Son of God is the very God he is the Son of.
We're along way from being told that John 1:1's “and the Word was God” is all the proof we need to know Jesus is God Himself.
Sometimes, technology is a good thing.
Oh, and we can't forget the fact that there are millions of people just like us out there actually SEARCHING and DISCUSSING these things from a newly INFORMED position. We now have all the info that the Trinitarian “experts” have had for hundreds of years………. and we can now use that info AGAINST them and arrive at the truth of the matter.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,16:02) ….when you say to people, “the Word was a god”, they do not tend to read that in a qualitative sense but take it the same way as the Word was another actual God alongside the original one…..
Well, that IS what is being taught. Just like in John 1:18 where Jesus is the “only begotten god” who explained the God that no man has ever seen to us.And there are many other translations besides the Coptic and NWT that have “a god” in that verse.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,16:02) That is why I have for a long time preferred, 'the Word was divine' or some other interpretation that brings out the qualitative meaning to the point that you cannot misconstrue it.
Fair enough, since you at least recognize that the god who was with “THE god” in the beginning is not the same God he was with.I do have problems understanding why you would consider Jesus being a god as something people would “misconstrue” – since there are 4 or 5 scriptures that call him such. But whatevs…….
The only real problem is that people cannot distinguish the God and a god.
Similarly, if there is one Devil and then we say that Judas is a devil, now we have two devils, not one.But there is only one who is the Devil. Thus, saying that there is another devil can be misconstrued as there being 2 Devils. Now we have polydevilism. So if there is indeed one Devil and there are many who are called devils, then obviously there is a difference in word usage here. And that difference is qualitative versus actual or identity.
So long as we understand that there is one who is the Devil and all who possess his nature and/or character are devils, then 'a devil' gives the correct impression.
But when it comes to God and a god, people do not judge with the same yard stick. They are immediately offended and say that you teach that there were two gods in the beginning, not one. From there, all kinds of accusations are possible and from there, those who embrace that there were 2 Gods/gods can easily move into error.
I prefer to not go there myself. There is one God who is the Father. And there is one Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word of God and he was with the Father in the beginning, even before the creation of the world. This is what I prefer to communicate. It is easy to comprehend and hard to misconstrue. And yes, in a qualitative sense he is theos just as all God's counsel are. But I do not call a Pharisees god either, although I could technically I suppose.
I personally think it wise to eliminate that which you know will happen. Sort of like, 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. Not calling anyone a fool here, but that there is a certain wisdom in communicating in a way that does not allow misinterpretation. And why is that? Because the enemy will absolutely try to get people to misunderstand us. I believe in not giving him the space to do that and if there is a better way, I will take it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2013,12:58) Agreed. I believe this is due in no small part to websites like yours, and sites where we can read what the Greek and Hebrew texts actually say.
I agree with your agreement.Years ago it was the printing press coupled with the Reformation that changed the power structure and old belief system.
Today, it is the Internet and the new reformation. Let's face it, we are reformers too. But we are closer to the time when Jesus returns for a Church without spot and blemish.
And as the day draws closer, may we all have less spots and blemishes.
Ha, just looked at my last sentence.
Quote And as the day draws closer, may we all have less spots and blemishes.
I wonder if a thousand years from now someone will say I was teaching that we should have blemishes. I see this sort of misinterpretation today from Trinitarians who move around commas to make Jesus God for example.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,17:53) The only real problem is that people cannot distinguish the God and a god.
Well then “people” need to be educated about this TRUTH of scripture, don't you think?t8, I can say the following with a clear conscious:
Although there are those called gods (as indeed there are many gods and many lords, both in heaven and on earth), for me personally, there is but one God, the Father, and the Lord He set up over us, Jesus Christ.
Can you?
Of course I can say that. But in Greek no one is ever called a theos. They are collectively called theos by reason of being part of the counsel of God, but is there even one mention of a Pharisee being called a god anywhere. Why not if they were part of the counsel of God as sitting on the seat of Moses?
Of course there is no indefinite article, and in Greek an individual is singled out with THE, not A.
But the Word in John 1:1c is already singled out as the Word, not as THE God, or God, or A God. Theos here is qualitative not as singling out God or another God.
e.g., t8 was a carpenter. Here I am singled out as t8, not because I am a carpenter. If I was going to put that statement in Greek, it would likely be t8 is THE carpenter or t8 is carpenter. It could be monumentally different according to which one I chose. Especially if there was another carpenter in the subject.
If I say that the Word was A god, then depending on which way you view it, it can mean THE God or theos/nature/divinity.
I prefer to give the person the right option from the start, saving countless hours or years of debate as to what I mean when I say the Word was theos.
If I say the Word was A theos, then the door is open to the Word being THE theos too.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,18:53) Of course I can say that.
So then you CAN say that there are indeed MANY gods.Name three of them for me.
Any false god, Satan is the god of this age, and the counsel of God.
The first two are literally in the place of God and so are also called THEOS with the descriptive false or of the age or something of that nature. Clearly not the God of all things.
The latter is a term that seems to be applied to a collective rather than anyone individual. “Ye are elohim/theos, you are ALL sons of the Most High.”
Okay, since the term “false god” doesn't exist in any Hebrew or Greek scripture, let's not use it as if it truly describes any god mentioned in scripture.
Secondly, if a group of elohim/theos are correctly called “gods”, then what is just one of that group correctly called?
Thirdly, there are many instances where just ONE god is called “god” in scripture.
And fourthly, I was looking for personal NAMES of three different gods that are described and detailed in scripture.
mike
the only thing we can be sure that all those gods are in fact true gods ,BUT “ISA 46:9 “Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,” THIS IS ALSO A FACT AND THE TRUTHONLY ONE GOD ALMIGHTY FATHER OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON JESUS Christ THE “WORD OF GOD HIS FATHER AND GOD ,
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) Okay, since the term “false god” doesn't exist in any Hebrew or Greek scripture, let's not use it as if it truly describes any god mentioned in scripture.
Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me.This is what I mean by false god. Idols, spirits, things that come before God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) Secondly, if a group of elohim/theos are correctly called “gods”, then what is just one of that group correctly called?
Of those who are called theos or elohim, where is any single one of them called theos or elohim?Singularly, they are called angel, pharisee, judge, and perhaps other terms, but they are not called 'a god/theos'. And even if they were, does that mean that the Word was a god?
Can we call a Pharisee a god? According to what you are saying, the answer would have to be yes. When an angel appears you could call him a god too.
I know Jesus is called mighty el. I admit I have to do some research about that one.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) Thirdly, there are many instances where just ONE god is called “god” in scripture.
Okay.I know that Eve is man, but is she a man?
I know that Judas was called devil, but was he really a devil or was he likened to the Devil qualitatively speaking?These gods you speak of as singular gods or a god, are they qualitatively theos while being an actual angel or a judge etc or are they actually not an angel, or judge but an actual God like God is?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) I was looking for personal NAMES of three different gods that are described and detailed in scripture.
Save me the trouble and mention them for me.I know that YHWH is literally a god. He is the God. The only true God.
Are these others you speak of Gods/gods or are they actually angels, men, sons? Or what?
He is the only one from whom all things originate. All else who are called theos legitimately are under him. He is the true authority.
A bit like what Jesus said when he spoke, “no one is good but God”. Obviously Jesus was not saying he was bad, rather that his goodness was really from God and not himself.
Likewise, theos/God's counsel/angels are not false gods, but are not the original God.
Saying that God's counsel is either God or a false god is like saying that Jesus is either God or bad.
Not many see the middle ground.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,18:38) He is the only one from whom all things originate. All else who are called theos legitimately are under him. He is the true authority. A bit like what Jesus said when he spoke, “no one is good but God”. Obviously Jesus was not saying he was bad, rather that his goodness was really from God and not himself.
Likewise, theos/God's counsel/angels are not false gods, but are not the original God.
Saying that God's counsel is either God or a false god is like saying that Jesus is either God or bad.
Not many see the middle ground.
t8agreed ,in total, all good things originate from God almighty the creator of all things ,and anyone that does his work does do good ,but it is through God's will ,
yes you right it is difficult for most to see and understand the middle part ,because religion always like to pull or push you to either extreme so that you are never right in what you think ,and so keep the middle ground for themselves,(between leaders)
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,02:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,16:15) Okay, since the term “false god” doesn't exist in any Hebrew or Greek scripture, let's not use it as if it truly describes any god mentioned in scripture.
Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me.This is what I mean by false god. Idols, spirits, things that come before God.
Okay. Now tell me which of Jehovah's words in Exodus 20:3 make you assume He is talking about “false gods” or “idols”.He simply says “gods”, right? So how is it that YOU'VE come to the conclusion that those gods are not real when such a thing is not stated by Jehovah?
As for “spirits”, they are called gods all throughout scripture. So what part of scriptures tells YOU that they aren't gods – like they're clearly called?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
