- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Tim2,
Jesus has now a “heavenly” or “celestial” body, which we also will have.
Where are they called “spiritual”bodies?Before God there was no god.
Above God there is no god.
In comparison to God there are no gods.W J :
Credible
KJV (47 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NKJV (130 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NLT (100 Scholars)
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.NIV (100 Scholars)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Godetc.
You quote many Bibles that had many scholars. Let’s look at one of them.NIV (100 Scholars)–WJ said.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”Why did they choose to translate this scripture this way? Why did they choose to do a lot of the things they did? Was some of these things EVEN THEIR CHOICE?
It's hard for someone to do their job well when their paycheck depends on them not doing it well.EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote on why they didn't do some things they “should have,” specifically, leaving God's name out of this “credible translation” (he he) some 7000 times!
Notice his words:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Even the King James (one of your “CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS”) had “Jehovah” 4 times at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4, only removing it slightly less than 7000 times! Either it made a mistake in removing it some seven thousand times or it made a mistake in including it. Yet, somehow, it's credible.
Back to the NIV
I think, a sure way to throw that $2,500,000 “down the drain” would for them to have translated John 1:1 any other way than the most popular way. Popularity and following the majority seems to not only being something you blindly subscribe to, but paradoxically, it seems to be something the majority that you cling to also are guilty of. So does it matter that there were so many scholars, when money was clearly a factor in determining whether to go with the popular choices or the non popular ones? They actually note that there are things “we should have” done, but didn’t. Why? MONEY! MONEY!
This is a disgrace and those who base their trust in people who succumb to such things and call them “credible” well, I consider that self deception.
I THINK THAT THE ACTUAL GREEK SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR and not money or popularity or tradition or following the majority, etc. You may hold to these things if you like. I do not.
“The situation today, where many translations…exists largely because of the amount of money to be gained…” -(The Preservation of the Bible By Faithful Churches)
–By Charles V. TurnerQuote I have no reason to believe that all these scholars conspired to miss translate John 1:1. –WJ
Nor do I. I don't think they “conspired” or got together but I do think they are human and it's a case of the blind leading the blind.
I've kept trying to use an example of other scholars (something you can understand.)
Yes, a huge group of scholars can all be wrong.
http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php
They can be wrong, because it is easier to be wrong. These evolutionists wanted these cases of piltdown man, java man, etc to be the real thing, the truth. Some of these finds were put in museums for decades, and because everyone wanted to believe, no one could see.
I don't think the trinitarian “scholars” conspired together anymore than the evolutionary ones.
They both wanted to believe and actually had little choice but to believe what they were told.
Here is how life works. You don't get grants, aren't taken seriously, can't publish your findings, don't make headway, if you are on the outside of the “establishement, be it in biology or Greek scholarship.
People, generally speaking, like to follow the crowd, because that is the easy thing to do. Tradition is easy. Going with the flow is easy.Can it happen with the majority? Unquestionably.
I want you to imagine for one second the possibility that all those scholars are wrong. I know it's a stretch in your mind, but just imagine that for a second.
Now, picture one of them questioning the others. How would that go?Well?
It wouldn't go. And that person that questioned the others would be laughed out of town, so to speak, forgotten. Rocks would be thrown at him. He wouldn't be taken seriously. He would have names thrown at him and fallacious arguments of the majority being right.
It would be a hard thing for one of them to do, to leave their group, so to speak. Few are willing to do it. But a few have.Me:
So would you say that any translation that translates any scripture differently from the majority is non credible? ? ?
WJ:
Quote David Yes.
So, you're willing to throw out your “credible” translations then?
OH, sorry, just got to your next posts, where you state something different:
Quote David Let me clarify!
No. Not necessarily.
Quote If you can present even one translation that has at least 50 credible Greek Hebrew, Aramaic scholars who translates, John 1:1 differently then I will consider John 1:1 as being ambiguous. So 49 wouldn't do. That last 50th scholar must be very important to you. So, one translator can make all the difference? I'm really not sure this is how this works. All 50 scholars looking at one verse. Maybe they break it in pieces, the Bible. Maybe only one scholar translated all of John, with oversight from other scholars that are in charge making sure that this one scholar translated it the popular recognized way.
So anyway, 46 scholars? Would that be ok?
How about 42 scholars? No?
But 50 is fine.
Quote at least 50 credible Greek Hebrew, Aramaic scholars who translates, John 1:1 differently
What do you mean by “differently?”Different than the “The Word was God” translation?
Is that what you mean?
Quote Why all the secrecy from the NWT translators? Ever hear of humility?
They, the translators wanted God's word to stand on it's own merit and weren't seaking prominence or anything like that. The NWT committee were not the only ones who have following this idea.
Quote God forbid I should have to defend that I know what undisputed means. As far as I am concerned it is undisputed, for the ones I have seen dispute it have no credentials or they are questionable in their motives.
And which ones would those be? Which ones are you even talking about? Did you read any of their comments? If so, which ones have questionable motives and what are these questionable motives?
As far as I am concerned it is undisputed. . . .except for the few antagonist or random scholars scattered here and there who “dispute” John 1:1–WJ
I contended that you had troubles with the word “undisputed.”
You responded: God forbid I should have to defend that I know what undisputed means.
Well, I'm not sure you do.
As far as I am concerned it is undisputed. . . .except for the few antagonist or random scholars scattered here and there who “dispute” John 1:1–WJ
If it is undisputed, that means no one disputes it. A sentence later, you mention that there are “random scholars” who “dispute” it. So, I'm not sure why you're upset that I noticed you used the word “undisputed” quite improperly. You yourself have proven that you were wrong in using that word.
I bring this up, because this is the main way that websites and perhaps yourself “prove” that JW's NWT is wrong here. You make outrageous claims, like it is undisputed. We see the same 20 quotes over and over, but few know how to actually reason on the Greek language or why (the motives) behind those scholars words. The internet has been bombarded with people saying the common translations are “undisputed” and thousands quote such things, and others quote those thousands.It is disputed.
You yourself said it.
Quote Are you saying that the saved will all have the same nature as God? I can't accept that. Tim, I'm saying that those ones will have a “divine nature”
and that God obviously has a divine nature.I'm saying that they will have “spirit bodies” as you say
and that God is “a spirit.”So in answer to your question:
Quote How can someone who isn't God be like God?
I would say what I have said.
You weren't asking how someone who isn't God could be God himself.
You were asking how someone who isn't God could be like God.
I have answered.Quote so it certainly isn't proof that we will have the same exact nature as God.
Having “divine nature” but not the exact nature of God. Certainly, God has a godly or godlike (divine) nature. If he doesn't no one does.I'm not saying they will be equal to God in power or wisdom or anything like that. I'm saying they'll have divine nature, as spirit creatures. And while God isn't a spirit “creature” he is a spirit.
Opposed to fleshly beings, they, God and those who share in this divine nature have the same nature, that being they have spirit bodies.Quote This alone makes this god completely different from God, for God is uncreated.
It in no way makes Jesus 'completely' different from God. It means his existence is of a different length. That's all it necessitates. Anything else is your own added thoughts.Quote But it isn't Scriptural to say that the Word was created because the Bible doesn't say that.
It says he's the firstborn of creation and the beginning of God's creation.
I don't know how that could possibly be more clear.Quote Rather, it says everything was made through the Word, and in the beginning the Word was!
The beginning of what? It has to be the beginning of something. For God had no beginning. It's speaking of the beginning of something specific, the beginning of creation. Yes, the Word was in the beginning with his Father. And it says everything was made through him, but it is with the obvius exception of himself.
In theBible we are often told, manytimes actually that all things would be subjected under Jesus feet. Over and over we're told this. There is, however, an obvious exception, God himself. And only once, we are told of this exception. But really, we shouldn't have to be. It's obvious.Quote Isaiah 43:10 says, “Before Me there was no god formed, and there will be none after Me,” so how is it that this god was formed?
Look at the context. It's speaking of the idol gods of the nations.It's late. I have to go.
david
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.
Hi
Foreordain by “divine” will or decree
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Who was Conformed to the Image of His Son? (Seed of David)
Verb: conform to
1.Satisfy a condition or restriction
– meet, fit2.Observe
“conform to the rules”3.Behave in accordance or in agreement with
– follow
Derived forms: conformed to, conforming to, conforms to
Type of: abide by, agree, check, comply, copy, correspond, fit, follow, gibe, imitate, jibe, match, simulate, tallyAdjective: predestinate pree'destunut
1.Established or prearranged unalterably
“a sense of predestinate inevitability about it”
– foreordained, predestined
Verb: predestinate pree'destu`neyt
1.Foreordain by divine will or decree
– predestine, foreordainThat which is flesh is flesh.
That which is spirit is spirit.The flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit.
Those who are ruled by the flesh think the things of the spirit are foolishness.
David you say…
Quote EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote on why they didn't do some things they “should have,” specifically, leaving God's name out of this “credible translation” (he he) some 7000 times!
Notice his words:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Even the King James (one of your “CREDIBLE TRANSLATIONS”) had “Jehovah” 4 times at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4, only removing it slightly less than 7000 times! Either it made a mistake in removing it some seven thousand times or it made a mistake in including it. Yet, somehow, it's credible.
And I suppose “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of Gods Name?
David, can anyone know with certainty how to pronounce “YHWH”.
So the JWS version of the Tetragrammaton is the only correct one?
You criticize the NIV and the KJV for not using “Jehovah”, why didn’t the unknown translators of the NWT hold closer to the name and translate it Yahweh or Yehowah?
Your argument about the name of God is a straw.
Is Jehovah the name of God…
The original pronunciation was probably YaHWeH. This seems to be the case by examining Jewish names. Many names contain part of the divine name, i.e. yah, and by examing the vowels that they used to construct their names with the divine abbreviation attached, we can get a feel for how YWHW was originally pronounced. We conclude from the examining names such as Joshua, Jehoshaphat, Elijah, and even the word hallelujah (hallel=praise; yah=Yahweh), that YH was pronounced as yah. We also have evidence that Yahweh is probably the correct pronunciation from examining the Greek’s tranliteration of the divine name as iaoue or iabe.
In conclusion, although it is not necessarily wrong to say God’s name as Jehovah, by no means can it be claimed that Jehovah is the name of God that has only been restored to us in these recent times. At best Jehovah can only be claimed to be an acceptable way of pronouncing God’s name in the English language, and at worst it could be said to be a phonetic corruption of God’s name. The probable pronunciation of God’s revealed name is Yahweh.
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jehovah.htmGod has many names. So the JWS claim that Gods name is “Jehovah “ is wrong.
David you say…
Quote Back to the NIV I think, a sure way to throw that $2,500,000 “down the drain” would for them to have translated John 1:1 any other way than the most popular way. Popularity and following the majority seems to not only being something you blindly subscribe to, but paradoxically, it seems to be something the majority that you cling to also are guilty of. So does it matter that there were so many scholars, when money was clearly a factor in determining whether to go with the popular choices or the non popular ones? They actually note that there are things “we should have” done, but didn’t. Why? MONEY! MONEY!
I am not a great fan of the NIV.
However, your argument that because they didn’t use Jehovah in the translation is the reason they didn’t translate John 1:1 in another way is bogus.
Again you still have many other translations that all agree. I suppose they all did it for money, right?
You have no proof of this. You accuse them of being dishonest, well how about the NWT in its handling of the name Jehovah…
The WBTS makes a reasonable case for using the sacred name in the Old Testament and criticizing those who do not. *However, in the WBTS's translation of the New Testament, which is called The Christian Greek Scriptures, there is an even more grievous and presumptuous error. The NWT inexplicably translates the common Greek words for Lord (kurios) and God (Theos) as “Jehovah” 237 times in the New Testament.* This unwarranted substitutionary use of the Old Testament name of God is made, however, only when kurios is used in the context of a clear reference to God in a generic sense, or when used in a passage that is a quote from the Old Testament. *However, not once do they translate kurios as “Jehovah” in the nearly 400 times in the New Testament when it is applied as a title to Jesus Christ. There is simply no legitimate textual or linguistic basis for making that distinction. The word kurios should always be accurately translated, according to context, as “Lord” or “Master”, and the word Theos as God, but neither ever translated as “Jehovah”.*
[red]Do you see any dishonesty here David?[/red]
*The reason for the NWT committee's placement of this name of God in the New Testament is obvious to anyone who understands Jehovah's Witnesses theology. *
*The WBTS, since its inception over a century ago, has totally rejected the key doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the full deity of Jesus Christ.*
*As a result, in its literature, and especially in its translation of the Bible, the WBTS has sought to obscure the clear New Testament teachings of those truths. This deliberate concealment is obvious when one makes a simple comparison of the NWT to the word-for-word translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text in the WBTS' own book The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.*
*The use of Jehovah to translate kurios (Lord) or Theos (God) 237 times in generic reference to God, but never as a title of Jesus, is clearly done to reinforce the distinction between God and Jesus in the minds of uninformed Jehovah's Witnesses*.
The truth is that the New Testament writers, following Jewish tradition in the Greek Septuagint's translation of the Old Testament, understood the term kurios (Lord), in most cases, to be a reference to deity in the fullest sense. Thus, when New Testament writers call Jesus “Lord,” they are identifying Him with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh or Jehovah).
The WBTS' denial of Jesus' deity is evidenced in numerous biased and inaccurate renderings of key passages by the NWT translators. Consider the following examples:
• John 1:1
The NWT renders this verse: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Nearly every other standard English translation agrees with that of the NASB: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Conclusion
The WBTS maintains that its English translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, is the best version ever produced. The evidence does not bear that conclusion. Actually, the facts show that the NWT ranks as one of the most unscholarly and biased Bible versions ever produced.
Unfortunately, millions of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide are required to consult the NWT exclusively. Thus, only the doctrinal biases and distortions of the WBTS are absorbed by faithful Jehovah's Witnesses.
Works Cited
All Scripture is inspired of God and Beneficial. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1963, 1983.
Franz, Raymond. Crisis of Conscience. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984.
Reasoning from the Scriptures. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985.
http://www.4truth.net/site….=982777I question the NWTs motive, dont you David?
David you say…
Quote
I THINK THAT THE ACTUAL GREEK SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR and not money or popularity or tradition or following the majority, etc. You may hold to these things if you like. I do not.I agree.
But do you think that the NWT can compare in translation to the over 600 real scholars that agreed on the text Jn 1:1 and its interpretation?
If you do then you are closing your eyes.
So, do we know who the NWT translators were?
The answer is yes, we do know, despite the WBTS' refusal to release the names.
*Raymond Franz is a former member of the WBTS Governing Body*. In his book, Crisis of Conscience, he states that the translation committee consisted of Governing Body members…
George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, Fredrick Franz, and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr.
*”Fred Franz (Raymond Franz's uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew” (Crisis of Conscience, 50).*
*The fact is, none of the members of the NWT committee, including Fredrick Franz, were really qualified to make a scholarly translation from the original languages.*
*No one on the committee had more than a rudimentary familiarity with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.* This lack of expertise is clearly revealed in the poor, biased quality of the NWT's renderings of many key biblical passages.
So you critisize me for trusting in the majority, would I want to trust in the minority?
Also…
“The WBTS claims that its Governing Body, its highest administrative authority, is the “faithful and discreet slave” mentioned in Matthew 24:45 (New World Translation).
*It considers itself and its publications the only legitimate channel of directly inspired leadership and the only totally correct interpreters of Scripture in the world today*.
Thus, the Governing Body says that only WBTS literature is reliable and can be trusted to interpret the Bible correctly.
*All Christian churches, their teachers, writers, and preachers are regarded as part of the evil world system, under the control of Satan*.
Their interpretations are thus dismissed as flawed, corrupted, and distorted, and are never consulted except to confirm WBTS teachings. Evangelical Christians would argue that no one church or organization can claim exclusive authority to interpret the Bible. All Christians are capable, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and with proper training, to understand the Bible.”
http://www.4truth.net/site….=982777
Any denomination or organization that claims they are the true church and everyone that is not a part of that organization is not of the true church, I believe is controlled by the Spirit of the wicked one who is the accuser of the brethren.
David you say…
Quote
So 49 wouldn't do. That last 50th scholar must be very important to you. So, one translator can make all the difference? I'm really not sure this is how this works. All 50 scholars looking at one verse. Maybe they break it in pieces, the Bible. Maybe only one scholar translated all of John, with oversight from other scholars that are in charge making sure that this one scholar translated it the popular recognized way.So anyway, 46 scholars? Would that be ok?
How about 42 scholars? No?
But 50 is fine.
If I said 1, the NWT couldn’t even produce that.
If you are so sold on the NWT David, why dont you use the translation here most of the time?
David
You say…
Quote As far as I am concerned it is undisputed. . . .except for the few antagonist or random scholars scattered here and there who “dispute” John 1:1–WJ I contended that you had troubles with the word “undisputed.”
You responded: God forbid I should have to defend that I know what undisputed means.
Well, I'm not sure you do.
Thanks for the english lesson!BTW David, how will Michael the Arch-Angel be married to the Bride of Christ?
And could you enlighten us with the scriptures from the NWT that suports this?
After all, isnt this the main reason your translation says “The Word was A god”, and you are so adamant in defending the NWT?
If it really means “the Word was God”, then that would blow a big huge hole in JWs foundational doctrine that Yeshua is the incarnation of Michael the arch-angel wouldnt it?
David
Also, I expect at this point you will slam this thread with a barrage of JWs propaganda. This is usually your tactic about now.
Quote (chosenone @ May 11 2007,17:49) Hi WJ.
Have you checked with the Interlinear Scripture Analyser, it gives the original Greek scripture and letters, translated to English.
See “scripture4all.org” I believe this to be very accurately translated, the authorized version is written to compare.Blessings.
COI have.
I also have an Greek and Hebrew intelinear. It is a transliteralization of the original.
It renders the “Logos” as Word.
I am not of the opinion that the “Saying” was with God and the “Saying” was God.
I dont believe this is what the writer John meant, expecially in light of 1 John 1:1,2.
Thanks for the info though.
Blessings
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 12 2007,07:54) Quote (chosenone @ May 11 2007,17:49) Hi WJ.
Have you checked with the Interlinear Scripture Analyser, it gives the original Greek scripture and letters, translated to English.
See “scripture4all.org” I believe this to be very accurately translated, the authorized version is written to compare.Blessings.
COI have.
I also have an Greek and Hebrew intelinear. It is a transliteralization of the original.
It renders the “Logos” as Word.
I am not of the opinion that the “Saying” was with God and the “Saying” was God.
I dont believe this is what the writer John meant, expecially in light of 1 John 1:1,2.
Thanks for the info though.
Blessings
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.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.
Your interpretation of John 1 is a dishonest fabrication used to support a doctrine that has no support in scripture.
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: ēn) 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 “ēn” 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 must be logged in to reply to this topic.
