- This topic is empty.
- Posts
(1)Seriously? you can’t allow the person teaching to teach on his own thread?
(2)If you can’t learn how to be a good student you will never be a good teacher…..If his teaching is not cohesive (3)he is inviting you as a STUDENT
to examine his work….(4)Your arrogance is distasteful and quite UGLY.Hi BD,
1) How exactly do you figure I’m stopping him?
2) Spin
3) He has not invited input from me – I know because I asked.
4) Are you looking in the mirror as you say that?____________
God bless
Ed JTigger, you obviously follow the New World Translation of scripture, aka Watchtower going by your defense of their translation of not only John 1.1 but now also John 17.3.
why do you follow the doctrines of men if I am correct?
miia, When it comes to scripture, I defend what I have found to be true with my own independent study. I have found that scripture really says “the Logos is a god” at John 1:1c. If anyone would actually follow my studies concerning it they would understand why. I would have to stay with this accurate, grammatical translation with or without the NWT’s agreement!
I can say the same for the NWT’s rendering of “God’s Son” (e.g., John 10:36) when the NT Greek text places the predicate noun before the verb. I have good grammatical evidence that it should be “THE son of God.”
I can easily reply to those who blindly accept the Trinitarian rendering of John 1:1c: “Why do you blindly follow the doctrines of men?”
I have proven that the grammar/usage of John at John 1:1c and all its proper parallel examples shows that an INDEFINITE predicate noun is invariably produced. Those who refuse to carefully examine my studies here are the ones blindly following the doctrines of men. How can you find the truth when you refuse to see (willfully blind)?
your lessons are completely sound and furthermore it agrees with the thinking of the time as Jesus said:
John 10:33-35English Standard Version (ESV)
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
in other words he is calling the word of God a god just as people were called gods to whom the word of God came, no one called these people The God or actually considered them to literally be God Almighty. God definitely inspired me to connect those 2 points I hope it helps especially since they are both in the book of John. God Bless!
Hi BD,
Was not Jesus quoting Psalm 82:6 for the express purpose of claiming he was THE “Son of God”
”Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
(John 10:36)Why couldn’t I then say “according to my studies” we should add an apostrophe to Psalm 82:6
Turning gods into God’s because as THE Children of God we are God’s NOT godsHey, doesn’t islam claim it is blasphemy for Jesus to call himself THE “Son of God”?
I can say the same for the NWT’s rendering of “God’s Son” (e.g., John 10:36) when the NT Greek text places the predicate noun before the verb. I have good grammatical evidence that it should be “THE son of God.”
Hi9 Tigger,
Doesn’t (1)”God’s Son” and (2)”Son of God” both mean the same?
In one instance (1) you add an “apostrophe” to the Greek words and
the other instance (2) you add the word “of” to the Greek words correct?…I mean since you studied the matter, right?
_______________
God bless
Ed JHi BD,
Was not Jesus quoting Psalm 82:6 for the express purpose of claiming he was THE “Son of God”
“Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
(John 10:36)Why couldn’t I then say “according to my studies” we should add an apostrophe to Psalm 82:6
Turning gods into God’s because as THE Children of God we are God’s NOT godsHey, doesn’t islam claim it is blasphemy for Jesus to call himself THE “Son of God”?
John 10:33English Standard Version (ESV)
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Jesus wasn’t making himself God as they say but no Jesus was not committing Blasphemy for what he said especially since what he was saying was an acceptable saying even in those days it was just a phrase of old but even so as far as blasphemy is concerned the Quran says:
They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
So that would be calling God “Jesus” and also
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #73)
Which is giving God partners
as far as someone being the son of God
They say: “Allah hath begotten a son”: Glory be to Him.-Nay,
- to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth:
everything renders worship to Him.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #116)
Hi Tigger,
One question I have: is “The Bible” ‘a god’ ???
“The Bible” certainly is “The Word” of God right?Is “the Bible” ‘a god’ Tigger?
miia, When it comes to scripture, I defend what I have found to be true with my own independent study. I have found that scripture really says “the Logos is a god” at John 1:1c. If anyone would actually follow my studies concerning it they would understand why. I would have to stay with this accurate, grammatical translation with or without the NWT’s agreement!
I can say the same for the NWT’s rendering of “God’s Son” (e.g., John 10:36) when the NT Greek text places the predicate noun before the verb. I have good grammatical evidence that it should be “THE son of God.”
I can easily reply to those who blindly accept the Trinitarian rendering of John 1:1c: “Why do you blindly follow the doctrines of men?”
I have proven that the grammar/usage of John at John 1:1c and all its proper parallel examples shows that an INDEFINITE predicate noun is invariably produced. Those who refuse to carefully examine my studies here are the ones blindly following the doctrines of men. How can you find the truth when you refuse to see (willfully blind)?
Hi Tigger.
Well glad you have found something you agree with. I am not interested in the New World Translation of scripture, or the JW teachings.
Did you do your own independent study in order to try to prove the NWT correct?
Those who refuse to carefully examine my studies here are the ones blindly following the doctrines of men.
Hi Tigger,
Are you suggesting to be uninformed is ‘to be misinformed’?
So if I don’t know the principals of how a jet engine works
that somehow makes me misinformed on how a jet engine works?Sorry, but this logic is faulty.
I hope you use better logic in “your studies”._______________
God bless
Ed JDid you do your own independent study in order to try to prove the NWT correct?
Hi Miia,
I believe that is what he is claiming in his seven part (or maybe five) lessons he studied.
_______________
God bless
Ed JFrom earlier post above:
“But, much more important, NO ONE HERE IS WILLING TO DISCUSS WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IN MY LESSONS CONCERNING JOHN 1:1c.”
you seem to have proved to yourself that your rendering of John 1:1 is correct, thus putting yourself in a position of Bible Translator.. and not only that but – a Translator who alone has the correct translation..!!?
(unless you’re a JW of course)..then you express disappointment because we cannot join you in your lofty position..!!
I’m not familiar with Greek..
nor do I need to be in order to discern truth..
rather I must rely on hearing the voice of the Spirit..
which sadly seems absent in your writings..
Tigger –
I’ve taken the time to read your “Seven lessons for John 1:1”. Thank you for taking the time to post it. I understand that ALL bibles are actual translations of the original, and that none are in its original language (hence the word translation) So we must rely on what has been translated, but how can we, when there are so many different translations, and we do not know Greek/Hebrew ourselves? We must take the time to educate ourselves on the matter, use our ability to reason logically, along with using scriptural evidence. After reading your post on John 1:1, parts A-C, I completely understood how one could render it “a god”. But it was after reading part D and E that brought it full circle. Thank you for using scriptures as examples for back up on the Greek translation. I truly believe the bible translates itself. I also can appreciate that you used Trinitarian sources when doing your research, therefore I could not find any bias. I am interested however to hear any type of refute of your study…not of your belief, or what religion you are…but just based on your study of John 1:1; in case I may have missed something.
UMB5,
Thank you, so much. Not so much that you seem to agree with my findings, but because you actually took the time to examine what I have found. I don’t believe anyone else has done that before!
Now if we can just find a few more who are willing to learn (or who have honest corrections for what I have written about John’s grammar and intended meaning at John 1:1c.)
Tigger2,
John 10:33Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
The indefinite article is arbitrary.
The clause “that thou, being man, makest thyself God” works perfectly well.
If I continue to look I will find that in some circumstances it can be translated as “a” but not in all as your lesson assumes.
Kerwin,
I really appreciate your reply to what I have written. I haven’t had any honest responses to it until UMB5 wrote the above post. Here’s the thing with John 10:33:
In Lesson A I show that we are interested in the form of the word for “god”/”God” which is used for subjects (and predicate nouns) as it is found in John 1:1c. This would be theos (which ends in ‘s’ or sigma in Greek). There are other forms (or cases) of the word, depending on its use (theou, theon, theo, etc.) where the article is arbitrary , but, fortunately, the only one which consistently uses the definite article for ‘God’ is the same one that is found in John 1:1c (theoS).
There is a link in Lesson A which takes you to all the uses of theos which I found in all the Gospels. Of course we’re primarily interestd in JOHN’s use of theoS.
So, we find in John 10:33 that John has used the form for ‘God’ (or a ‘god’ in some translations) which is used as a direct object (theoN) not the theoS form that needs to be examined throughout John’s writings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
