Quote Hi theodorejThe bible says that the earth has corners and at the alleged 'time of Jesus'You know, people today still speak of the four corners of the earth. For example, Athletes came from the four corners of the earth to compete in the Olympics. Today, it means every part of the world. I wonder what it meant back then. Perhaps the…[Read more]

A post from Ken, taken from the John 1:1 thread:https://www.heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=1100My thoughts are in bold.The “Sahidic Coptic has no neuter gender (thus most Greek neuter nouns are rendered as though they were masculine); Sahidic Coptic has only the active voice; Sahidic Coptic often renders the Greek imperfect and the aorist as perfects,…[Read more]

WJ's links, for my own records.https://www.heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=1090http://forananswer.blogspot.com/2006….on.html

I find this page interesting, a couple paragraphs down, under the heading:Does a “pre-human” Messiah disqualify or compromise the human Messiah’s true humanity?http://members.shaw.ca/homechr….nce.htmThere, he says:(1) Real “human” beings cannot walk on water. (2) Jesus walked on water. (3) Therefore, Jesus was not a real human being. The…[Read more]

For people who like to read:http://books.google.ca/books?i….A311,M1I find page 312 very interesting.  As it turns out, those who argue against the coptic saying “a god” have nothing to stand on.  This discussion seems to be over.  Now to figure out why this information was so easily swept under the rug.

Quote Hi All……For there (ARE) three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the HolySpirit; and these three (ARE ONE). If we believe they are one and the same, then the word is GOD as John 1:1 states. Gene, you know those added words have no good reason for being there.Quote If we believe they are one and the same, then the word…[Read more]

This person states the matter and why this is so significant, very clearly:”the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c:“the Word was a god.”Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is poss…[Read more]

The 3d century (200's) is the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation. But I wish we could narrow the timeframe down.”The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers.(Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his…[Read more]

Someone in a blog somewhere said that the Coptic church doesn't believe it should be translated “a god.”“The Coptic Bohairic version also has the indefinite article, written in full form, ou before the word for “god,” at John 1:1c, ie., “a god.”  This is basically the Bible in use by the modern Coptic church, reading in Coptic: ouoh ne ounoute pe…[Read more]

Again, for those that haven't been paying attention, here it is simply:Apart from theology, and on the basis of grammar alone, the ancient Coptic translators of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE obviously understood the Greek construction of John 1:1c to be indefinite, and translated accordingly in the Coptic. If they had understood it to be definite…[Read more]

Trinitarians have become more aware that the ancient Coptic New Testament renders John 1:1c literally as “the Word was a god .”For nearly a century they have merely ignored it. Look into any New Testament critical text, such as the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA27), and you will see that the ancient Coptic text readings are given for many other New…[Read more]

another interesting link, wikipedia, on John 1:1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=7509546

Concernng John 1:1, and how many have translated it, you really should check out this page:http://home.dc.rr.com/reasoning/trans11.htmOne of the forty or so translations is George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, nd (a) God was the word” For more on the Coptic, see the Coptic thread.

Just for my own reference.http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2794Also, “When I asked Dr. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, renowned Coptic scholar at Hebrew University in Israel, what a literal, non-theological rendering of Coptic John 1:1c would be, the candid reply was that theolological issues in this verse could not be avoided. “The Word w…[Read more]

Someone asked this question, which I think is clever.Is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 the last nail in the coffin of the Trinity . . .?. . . Or is it the first nail in the coffin, considering its early date?

After more and more research, I should stop saying that this coptic was translated in the third century (between 200 and 300 C.E.)More and more references say that this was “in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century of the Common Era.”Perhaps a closer date would be between 188 (Horner's suggestion) and the early 3d century.”The earliest…[Read more]

Lance Jenott's (Princeton U.) 2003 translation of John 1:1-14http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄIn the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a…

It's clear that “The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language,” in fact, they used many Greek words in their langauge, a language which used the Greek alphabet. (Egyptian with the greek alphabet and seven extra letters, I think)Koine Greek was actually still spoken when they translated it. By the time…[Read more]

Quote David,Thank you for providing good sound information to people like me who are too lazy tofind it on our own.TimNo problem Tim.  If you want to actually do a lot of work and study, this link would be helpful:http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.comThe following link, is something we call: “Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic John 1:1c should be…[Read more]

On SHARP'S RULE:In the New World Translation Titus 2:13 reads: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”However, many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glori…[Read more]