- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I made a post but can't find it, so maybe I didn't send it.
Anyway, hello.
You said my post was interesting. Please give your meaning. Interesting good or interesting way off?Quote Interesting good or interesting way off?
I'm not sure.Really, the only point on this specific thread that I am wanting to discuss is the translation of John 1:1c.
Lately, I have been discussing the “the Word was divine” translation, which is favored by some, Jason Debuhn, being one of them. Notice his comments:
“It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in John 1:1c would be “and the Word was a god.” The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly seen, traditional translation, “and the Word was God.” However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.
“The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or “x is a y.” The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are “Snoopy is a dog”; “The car is a Volkswagen”; and “John is a smart person.” The common translation “The Word was God” is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English “Snoopy is dog”; “The car is Volkswagen”; or “John is smart person.” The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.
“Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with “John is a smart person,” which means the same thing as “John is smart.” What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many “a son of x” expressions found in the New Testament.
“Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the center of focus rather than category”” Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER “And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that “And the Word was God” is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.
“What I can say is that “And the Word was God” is extremely difficult to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage. Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional translation. What your correspondent needs to understand, in dealing with others on this question, is that the wording “The Word was divine” agrees 100% in meaning with “The Word was a god” and only 50% with “And the Word was God.” What must be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the “god” or “divine” category, and that is as true if the wording is “a god” or “divine.”
“Remember, the Word is not a human person, and John does not use “god” for the Word to say he is talking about a prophet or a leader or an important person. The Word is a superhuman (hence “divine”) essence or being, very intimately connected to The God. How intimately? In what way connected? In what precise relationship? The answers to those questions are much more involved, and must be based on a reading of the Gospel of John as a whole, where John works very hard to make it all clear. And yes, there will be disagreements about how to understand this larger picture John is trying to convey.
“Of course, if your correspondent is using what I have written in arguments with people who favor the traditional translation, they are likely to seize upon my acceptance of “The Word was divine” as somehow a defense of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him for not going further and for not answering all of the additional questions people have been able to raise since his time.
“The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to “The Word was divine” because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God).”
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htmNotice he said:
“And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN.
The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an absolute perfect way to translate this verse, given the difference in thought and language with English and Greek. But these two translations come as close as possible.Hi David.
Tell me if you agree with this statement.“Theos is a count noun. Count nouns must be either definite or indefinite.”
Ah, first my question:
Quote David, can I have your definition for “divine” please? And can you also tell me if you believe there is than one divine being? I'm trying to get a handle on your view here. Thanks.
–Is 1:18godlike or heavenly.
Quote
And can you also tell me if you believe there is [more] than one divine being?Question: Is a being that has “divine nature” a divine being?
Is 1:18, I've been looking at some of the quotes you quoted earlier, in 2005. I think you may misunderstand my beliefs slightly.
Quote (david @ May 14 2007,20:42) Question: Is a being that has “divine nature” a divine being?
David you answered my question with one of your own, nevertheless I'll answer.My answer is yes. Only a divine being can have a divine nature.
Quote (hope2u @ May 14 2007,20:30) I made a post but can't find it, so maybe I didn't send it.
Anyway, hello.
You said my post was interesting. Please give your meaning. Interesting good or interesting way off?
Hello Hope2U,
Nice to meet you.
Quote (david @ May 14 2007,20:36) Quote Interesting good or interesting way off?
I'm not sure.Really, the only point on this specific thread that I am wanting to discuss is the translation of John 1:1c.
Lately, I have been discussing the “the Word was divine” translation, which is favored by some, Jason Debuhn, being one of them. Notice his comments:
“It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in John 1:1c would be “and the Word was a god.” The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly seen, traditional translation, “and the Word was God.” However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.
“The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or “x is a y.” The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are “Snoopy is a dog”; “The car is a Volkswagen”; and “John is a smart person.” The common translation “The Word was God” is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English “Snoopy is dog”; “The car is Volkswagen”; or “John is smart person.” The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.
“Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with “John is a smart person,” which means the same thing as “John is smart.” What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many “a son of x” expressions found in the New Testament.
“Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the center of focus rather than category”” Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER “And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that “And the Word was God” is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.
“What I can say is that “And the Word was God” is extremely difficult to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage. Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional translation. What your correspondent needs to understand, in dealing with others on this question, is that the wording “The Word was divine” agrees 100% in meaning with “The Word was a god” and only 50% with “And the Word was God.” What must be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the “god” or “divine” category, and that is as true if the wording is “a god” or “divine.”
“Remember, the Word is not a human person, and John does not use “god” for the Word to say he is talking about a prophet or a leader or an important person. The Word is a superhuman (hence “divine”) essence or being, very intimately connected to The God. How intimately? In what way connected? In what precise relationship? The answers to those questions are much more involved, and must be based on a reading of the Gospel of John as a whole, where John works very hard to make it all clear. And yes, there will be disagreements about how to understand this larger picture John is trying to convey.
“Of course, if your correspondent is using what I have written in arguments with people who favor the traditional translation, they are likely to seize upon my acceptance of “The Word was divine” as somehow a defense of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him for not going further and for not answering all of the additional questions people have been able to raise since his time.
“The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to “The Word was divine” because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God).”
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htm
David,
You do realise that by citing an apologetic writing that argues for a qualitative rendering of the predicate noun “theos” in the last clause of John 1:1 you are effectively arguing against the NWT rendering (which is indefinite), don't you?Maybe you should fill me in on your beliefs here David.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 14 2007,20:49) Quote (david @ May 14 2007,20:42) Question: Is a being that has “divine nature” a divine being?
David you answered my question with one of your own, nevertheless I'll answer.My answer is yes. Only a divine being can have a divine nature.
Hi Is 1.18,
Can you disecern the nature of the Son from the Father Who indwelled him?
Surely he was meek and humble of heart, obedient and genuine, honest and sincere, open and friendly, warm and generous.
But the wisdom and the power came from God's Spirit.Quote (david @ May 14 2007,19:43) Quote Hello David, do you know that the nwt translation is written by freemasons catholic jesuits and evil people. I'm not going to even respond to this drivel. I've spent a lot of time researching this freemason garbage. It is ridiculous. Yes, if you spend 5 mintues on garbage sites, you can find people saying these things. If you spend a little longer, you'll find out it's trash. I've already discussed this on here. I no longer have any tolerance for this. If you bring this up again, I will show it and you for what you are. '
I'm sorry.
david.
Hello David, dont be afraid of the truth. The Jehovahs witnesses brainwash their congregation. The watchtower tract society are masonic which is why they are anti Christ. If you are brainwashed then allow Jesus give you sight. If you are a mason or jesuit yourself then confess and allow Jesus to wash you with his blood. There is salvation in no other name.Do yourself a favor David and see the truth.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….mQuote (david @ May 14 2007,20:38) Notice he said:
“And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN.
The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an absolute perfect way to translate this verse, given the difference in thought and language with English and Greek. But these two translations come as close as possible.
If I am not mistaken, translators also depend heavily on the contextual use of a word, phrase, or group of phrases when the grammatical translation is difficult. I think this is one of those times. Based on John's total presentation of Jesus, the intention of his opening statement is to drive home the fact that Jesus was and is totally from God, in God and speaks God's word to the world. In that context Jesus was in the beginning with God and he was and is the Word of God.
I believe that trying to find the exact meaning of a word or phrase can sometimes become more important than understanding the intent and context of how it is being used. In much the same way the Jews had difficulty accepting the message Jesus was delivering from God and they tried to stone him because of it. That is a facet of human nature that still exists today.David
You say…
Quote WJ, so Just like that, you've discarded 100 scholars? Your number has dropped from 600 credible scholars to 500. More of your misrepresentation. I never said to take away the 100 in my list, I said if “You” take out your disputed version then “You” still have over 500 whcih “you” have not given evidence that they were dishonest in their translation of John 1:1.
The burden of proof is on you David. You make broad accusations about following the majority, yet you have failed to show that the translations I have mentioned are not credible and there handling of John 1:1 was disengenuous.
You cointinue to attack the written scriptures that we have without justification.
David
You say…
Quote
I think I asked you for all the non credible translations. Do you assert that the NWT is the only one? Because if you're basing this on John 1:1, you could include several more. It almost seems as though you are biased in it, in not mentioning the many others that don't translate it “the Word was God.”You asked for “One” non credible translation…
Posted: May 09 2007,12:45Quote WJ, PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF THE CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND ONE OF THE NON-CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS. THANKYOU.
I have presented what I believe is credible and 1 that I believe is non credible.
So now why dont you give us your “credible translations”, since we now know you consider the ones I mentioned as non credible.
What are you sources David?
David
You say…
Quote Nooooooooo.. I've explained this a few times now. I don't seem to think that the NIV “must have mistranslated John 1:1” just because they clearly had unpure motives and were influenced by less then perfect reasons, namely money.
My assertion, once again, is simply that you keep stating: “Listen, there's so many scholars. They are above question.”Then why did you bring the NIV up David, we are discussing John 1:1 and the translations.
Where is the evidence that they conspired to mis translate John 1:1?
You say…
Quote That is ridiculous, my friend. Let's actually look at things a little closer.
Before you relied soly on how many scholars there were. The NIV had a 100 so it was credible. Now that you know it made some of it's decisions based on popularity and the need for money, you drop it out of your list.
Again, missrepresentation. I didnt remove the NIV out of the list, I simply stated if “You” remove it you still have over 500 scholars to show evidence that they conspired to mistranslate John 1:1.Burden of proof. You make accusations, then back them up with facts.
Untill then I will go with the majority.
For I am not looking for reasons to mistrust or critisize the written scriptures that we have.
I compare the different versions and with the help of the Spirit of truth I make a descision on what I believe as true.
I think there are differences in the major translations but they are few and are not contradictory in major doctrinal issues.
However the NWT is.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,15:16) Quote (martian @ May 12 2007,11:38) As has been stated before, by what authority do you or anyone else make the term “word” equal Jesus when over 300 other times in scripture the word means statement/speach/plan. You are reading your doctrine into the term instead of using proper principles of line upon line precept upon precept. You are not letting scripture interpret scripture but instead letting your doctrinal ideas interpret scripture.
By what authority do you narrow the term logos to exclusively mean “statement/speech/plan”, when the NT writer’s used the word more broadly than that.In Revelation 19:13, for example, it's used in reference to the person of Yeshua:
“He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word [Gr. logos] of God.”
His name is called The logos of God…..does a statement/speech/plan have a name?, or wear a robe for that matter?
Logos is used similarly in 1 John 1:1
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word [Gr. logos] of Life”
The Logos can be “looked at” and “touched”. Can a statement/speech/plan be seen or touched?
In Hebrews 4:12-13 logos has a personal application as well:
”For the word [Gr. logos] of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
The logos is said to “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart”. It is also written that the logos has “eyes” and “there is no creature hidden from His sight”. Tell me martian, can a “statement/speech/plan” properly be ascribed any of these things?
As I see it there are several problems with an adjectival rendering of “theos” in John 1:1. For starters the Greek word for “with” (pros) in the second clause is used in the accusative, and when used this way properly means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship). When John wrote “the Word was with God” his grammar denotes an intimate communion between the logos and theos. So, logically, this phrase cannot be referring to ‘something said’, or a ‘plan’ coming from God. You cannot have “pros” with an abstract concept. Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: ?n) in John 1:1a and 1:1b is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put – whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence (i.e. without a beginning). So the notion that the logos is a statement/speach/plan looks shaky on this count as well. Plans are conceived, statements/speeches are uttered, they have beginnings/origins martian. In the third clause of John 1:1 it is written of the logos that He “was God”. There are two grammatical features of interest here. The first is the imperfect verb “?n” is again used by John, signifying the logos was always “theos”. The other is, of course, the very word “theos” itself. In what sense could an abstract concept be considered “theos”? It seems strange to attribute this noun to an intangible, don't you think? What was John's conveyance here? Tell me if you know martian. Lastly, another problem for the unitarian interpretation is verse 4 of John 1, which in speaking of the logos reads:
”In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”
I gather there is some disputation over the meaning of the word “zoe” in this verse. Some avow that it means the Word had life, i.e., was “alive”, most affirm that it the Greek word refers to eternal life and in the context of John 1:4 means “eternal life was intrinsically His to give”. Whatever the correct construal, it raises the question for you martian; “how could a adjectival concept, an expression of God, have any kind of life ”in Him”?
Quote And do not pull the old dodge of bringing up that a statement cannot be god. If you understood the simpleast of Hebrew concepts, you would know they speak in aligorical terms. From the standpoint of the Hebrews any revealing of God could be refered to as God. For example Moses calls the burning bush God. In fact God speaks from the bush and says he is God. Does this mean that God is literally a burning bush? There is much moe clear evidence that God is a burning bush then that the term “word” in John 1 literally means Jesus.
No. In Exodus 3:4 we read:”…God called to him from the midst of the bush…”
There is no confusing the bush for YHWH. He called to Moses from the “midst” of it. YHWH can dwell within a bush martian. He can dwell within people as well, and yet they do not become “God”. Reason it through.
The other problem with your assertion that John 1:1 is allegorical and should not be taken literally is that John's prologue is manifestly written in the form of a historical narrative. John is recounting the events leading up to and proceding the Word becoming flesh (v 14). “All things” really were “made” in the beginning (v3, cf Gen. 1). John the Baptist really existed and was sent as a forerunner for Yeshua (vs 6-7) etc etc. These are historical facts martian. So, is only the first verse in the prologue allegorical and the rest literal? I think it’s exceptionally unlikely. Especially considering the first three words (in English) of John 1:1 mirror the beginning of Genesis Chapter 1, which according to Yeshua (Matthew 19:3–6, 24:37–39; Mark 10:2–9, Luke 17:26–27) is also written as a historical narrative.
Quote Your interpretation of John 1 is a dishonest fabrication used to support a doctrine that has no support in scripture.
Cult buster's interpretation is conventional. It's well supported by the grammar and context of the passage. Your's, on the other hand, appears to have some obvious faults. But I'll reserve judgement until you have given your explanation for the points raised in this post.
You state –By what authority do you narrow the term logos to exclusively mean “statement/speech/plan”, when the NT writer’s used the word more broadly than that.
Response –
1.By the authority of 300 other times the verse is used indicating statement/speech/plan. Again you are taking the few verses used to prove Trinitarian doctrine out of the complete context of scripture. To take a term out of the normal meaning as portrayed in the overall context one must have diffinitive proof that there is reason to do so. Needing proof for your doctrine is not reason enough.
(As a
side note – it is a weak method to try the old dodge of putting me on the defensive when you are the one taking terms out of context)
2.2. By the authority of have an understanding (incomplete I admit) of the way in which Hebrews thought and wrote. Trying to understand scripture from a Greek thinking mindset leads to misunderstanding. One must understand that Hebrews wrote in concrete alligorical ways. Trying to literalize a scripture when no literal meaning was intended leads to mistake.
3. By the authority of understanding the meanings behind the words according to Hebrew perspectives and not by Western thought.
4.By the authority of understanding that when the Hebrews saw a revealing of God they acted and responded as if to God himself. For example Moses and the burning bush. Moses acted and responded as if he were facing God himself. The bush even spoke saying that it was God. Do you then say that God is literally a burning bush? There is much more very clear scripture that says that God is a burning bush then there is that the “logos” is literally Jesus. When the High Priest entered the Holy of Holy’s on the day of atonement and saw the Shakinah Glory he knew that he was in the presence of God. Is God literally a bright light?
5.By the authority of every leading Bible Dictionary’s primary definition of the term “Logos” meaning statement/speech/idea/plan.
6.By the most primary principles of hermaneutics which state that before one can assign a secondary meaning to a term, one first must completely discount the primary meaning of a term by preponderance of the evidence via contextual usage of said term throughout scripture. In other words if one wants to assign a meaning outside of the primary meaning, it must be established by the same usage in the majority of the general context. In order to assign a literal meaning of Logos = Jesus in John, it must be established that Logos = Jesus fits in the majority of the general context. It simply does not.While it is true from a concrete way of thinking that Jesus is the logos it is not true from a literal standpoint. Jesus is the exact representation and example of the character and plan of God. This was His mission as the Messiah. Even His death on the cross served as the example of our death to self and sacrifice of our lives we built outside of God that are dominated by the carnal desires of the flesh.
I am not going to deal with all of your scriptures for to be honest, I do not believe you to be willing to change your western thinking or accept the truth. I will only point out a few things for those others that might be open.
In Revelation 19:13, for example, it's used in reference to the person of Yeshua:
“He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word [Gr. logos] of God.”
Response –
Firstly you are missing several key elements in your dissection of this verse. The term name from a Hebrew perspective is not an identifier, but rather an indication of character traits or characteristics. Jesus was the perfect expression of the plan and purpose of God. He carried and expressed the character of God and showed forth the characteristics of the plan of God.“He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His character and characteristics are called the plan of God
Logos is used similarly in 1 John 1:1
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word [Gr. logos] of Life”
The Logos can be “looked at” and “touched”. Can a statement/speech/plan be seen or touched?
Response –
I see no proof here. The word “concerning” indicates it is about the plan of God not literally is the plan of God. The disciples saw and touched many things concerning the plan of God.In Hebrews 4:12-13 logos has a personal application as well:
”For the word [Gr. logos] of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
The logos is said to “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart”. It is also written that the logos has “eyes” and “there is no creature hidden from His sight”. Tell me martian, can a “statement/speech/plan” properly be ascribed any of these things?
Response –
First you assume that the pronoun He in verse13 is referring to the Logos. That is not clearly indicated. Your assumption is based on giving the term “word” animation and therefore making it worthy of being portrayed by a pronoun.
In context –
1Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
3For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,? “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,? THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,”? although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”;
5and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.”
6Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,? “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,? DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
8For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
11Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.( Up to this point it is very clearly speaking of following God’s way/plan in order to enter into the rest. To be carefull not to fall into disobediance. – why? Because the plan of God is the standard by which we will be judged. By that standard are our motives and thoughts seen in clear relief.
12For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(Now without the preconceived idea of animation for the logos the context goes back to God and his plan.)
13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.(Therefore or based on all of the above, we have a high priest that fulfilled the plan of God as a forerunner for us. This forerunner understands our plight because he has already overcome it himself. We can therefore pursue with confidence the grace of God supplied within God’s plan.)
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.I give you one final verse to consider, though I doubt you will hear what I am saying.
Revelation chapter 1
Here we have the author of the gospel John relating what he has seen.
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which m
ust soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2who testified to the word (logos) of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.Let’s try your meaning
2who testified to the Jesus of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.Now mine
2who testified to the word plan of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.John bore witness to the plan of God and to the perfect example of the fulfillment of that plan in Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the perfect expression of the plan of God. A plan is not literally a person.
David
You say…
Quote Today it's the NIV. Who knows what you'll discover tomorow. My point is that it's foolish to blindly follow the majority or stick to large numbers to be correct when we know, from the Bible itself that majorities are often wrong, that Satan is ruling this world and has great influence, that wicked men have always tried to pervert the truth to suit their needs. You ignore all these things and focus on large numbers.
Christians have been following and believing John 1:1 as it is written for centurys. Suddenly a few antagonist and scattered scholars come along to say the translations we have are wrong, including the NWT. Sorry dont buy it.You say…
Quote
Question: I think I asked it before, but would you consider any translation “non-credible” if it translates one word differently from all other or most other translations?No. But you are using a hypothetical here, because you have yet to show me any credible evidence that the translation of John 1:1 is incorrect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
