Not worth doing. Scholars can share principles of translation and indicate flexibility of minuscule (or narrow) text. But the translation is determined by the various contexts. You are trying to redefine little bits and pieces here and there but you do not consider the broad context. Just like the ignorant discussion on Jam 1:13
The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Um he affirmed the deity of christ and even the translation the word was Go.
And what you are saying is completely wrong
The point was that the Word was not the Person (the God) he was with but that he was of the same essence as he - deity
John 1:1 (NEB) — 1 WHEN ALL THINGS began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.
Sorry it does not say he prayed to the father and you fail to read according to context
2 Corinthians 12:8–10 (UASV) — 8 Three times I implored the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I take delight in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Nuances are not denials, None of the scholars deny Christ's deity as you do
That is just spin
Dan Wallace had this to say
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
That is false. They are defending the deity of Christ and showing he is not the father
That is orthodox Trinitarianism, and those writers do not support your denial in the least
Sorry there is a differentiation hereyou violate scripture, his ... "OWN ARM" is him...lol, Oh my ....listen, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."
HIS OWN ARM IS HIM...... double check..... mate.
now, no need to reply you have been reproved over and over.
101G.
Isaiah 53:1–6 (KJV 1900) — 1 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, And as a root out of a dry ground: He hath no form nor comeliness; And when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: And we hid as it were our faces from him; He was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, And carried our sorrows: Yet we did esteem him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon him; And with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
and a rather plain one at that
Again Hebrews uses agency
Hebrews 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
by whom he made the world
There is the agent and the one who employed him
that is two
Runningman
Well-known member
So where we are at now is we have each picked the scholars and translations that affirm exactly what we believe. Nothing to add then.
Yes, but you're learning.
Complete
Well-known member
'Be careful for nothing;
but in every thing by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving
let your requests be made known unto God.
And the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus.
(Php 4:6-7)
Hello there,
God has placed the believer 'in Christ' (1 Cor. 1:30) and we pray to the Father through Him. In His name we make our requests known unto God. and we receive what we ask, through Christ Jesus. He is both our Advocate and our Mediator. The Holy Spirit searches the heart and knows what is the mind of the spirit, and knows what we have need of before we ask. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in unison, as One .'He that spared not His Own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?'(Rom 8:32) [everything within the context].
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
but in every thing by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving
let your requests be made known unto God.
And the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus.
(Php 4:6-7)
Hello there,
God has placed the believer 'in Christ' (1 Cor. 1:30) and we pray to the Father through Him. In His name we make our requests known unto God. and we receive what we ask, through Christ Jesus. He is both our Advocate and our Mediator. The Holy Spirit searches the heart and knows what is the mind of the spirit, and knows what we have need of before we ask. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in unison, as One .'He that spared not His Own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?'(Rom 8:32) [everything within the context].
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Runningman
Well-known member
Sorry, it doesn't say what you're suggesting. Yes, it mentions the power of Christ, but be implored the Lord. Also, the point about the power of Christ does not mention he was imploring Christ or that he was praying to Christ. You're reading too far into this.
Runningman
Well-known member
I've already read it. Read it again because you left off some of the excerpt. He very well does acknowledge that the "the word was a god" is plausible. It very easy to prove that this is the case considering there are no shortages of examples in the Bible where when someone or something is identified with the "the" definite article while those around them are not identified with the "the" definite article. This is very basic english grammar.
John 1:1 is simply translated with theology, but they didn't go far enough! It completely contradicts Trinitarianism. Remember, Jesus is the Word in Trinitarianism so it can be read like "Jesus was with God." Since God is the Trinity then it should be able to read like "Jesus was with the Trinity" and there would be no issues.
Yes John 1:1 is translated wrong in your Bible. It's in the mouth of a number of experts who acknowledge it, but ultimately can't swallow it.
Runningman
Well-known member
I even quoted you the sources and you still didn't see where they discuss the translation of John 1:1? You looked them all up. Yes they did confirm there are other ways to translate John 1:1. Debating with you has become a bit of a chore. Not because you have difficult arguments, but it's really annoying dealing with all of your denials. It's distracting, time consuming, boring. I am going to just start editing out the noise from now on. Just wanted to say that so you know going forward.
Runningman
Well-known member
Hi Complete. I am curious how you are reading this. Do you see the request that is being made known to God as the same subject as the peace of God?
101G
Well-known member
GINOLJC, to all.
Sorry for you,
his own ARM is Revealed? Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."
his OWN ARM.... lol, lol, lol, God truth stands.... (smile).
Hebrews 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," BY, BY, BY, .... HIMSELF..... that's God's agency.
until you can comprehend basic bible understanding no need to reply.
101G
You are diverting
stick to the context
Isaiah 53:1–12 (KJV 1900) — 1 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, And as a root out of a dry ground: He hath no form nor comeliness; And when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: And we hid as it were our faces from him; He was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, And carried our sorrows: Yet we did esteem him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon him; And with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, Yet he opened not his mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, So he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: And who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: For the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, And with the rich in his death; Because he had done no violence, Neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; For he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, And he shall divide the spoil with the strong; Because he hath poured out his soul unto death: And he was numbered with the transgressors; And he bare the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.
as even a blind man can see
You need to stop ignoring the evidence
The issue is not wether they discuss the translation. It whether they support your view.
They do not as I showed you, and if i deny your claims I do so with evidence,
while you simply often offer bald unsupported denials to multiple texts, often ignoring context as shown over and over.
It is rather deceptive of you to refer to the evidence presented as noise.
The question is what does he mean by it
it is not your denial of Christs deity as you would have it
Nuances are not denials, None of the scholars deny Christ's deity as you do
That is just spin
Dan Wallace had this to say
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
in fact even Jehovah is called a God
Luke 20:37–38 (KJV 1900) — 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
(NWT)Luk 20:37 But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah 'the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.'
Luk 20:38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him."
Sorry but you are experiencing a reading comprehension issue
2 Corinthians 12:8–10 (UASV) — 8 Three times I implored the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I take delight in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Notice in the denial of healing
the lord states
And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness
and Paul interprets the power of the lord he entreated thusly
Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
You fail to consider context and have done so time after time as I have demonstrated over and over
Context refutes your denials
This is the New international commentary on John 1:1''
After introducing “the Word” in the first clause, the verse presents an interplay between “the Word” (ho logos) and “God” (ho theos) in two different ways, and in chiastic fashion: the Word was “with God” and, following the order of the Greek text, God was what the Word was.7 The solemn repetition—Word, Word, God, God, Word—captures the reader’s attention from the outset by giving the language a poetic or hymnic quality that immediately sets John apart from the other three canonical Gospels. Because this quality is not typical of John’s Gospel as a whole, the impression is given that John will be more different from the other Gospels than is actually the case.
What then is the relationship between the Word and God? The signals are mixed, in that the two are viewed first as distinct entities (“the Word was with God”), and then in some way identified with each other (“the Word was God”). “God” in the first instance has the definite article in Greek (ho theos), which is not used in English when speaking of the Jewish or Christian God, but in the second instance it stands without the article. But the placement of “God,” or theos, first in its clause, before the verb, gives it a certain definiteness, warning us against reducing it to a mere adjective. At the same time, the absence of the article alerts the reader that “the Word” and “God,” despite their close and intimate relationship, are not interchangeable. While the Word is God, God is more than just the Word.11 Even though it stands first in its clause, “God” is the predicate noun and not the subject of the clause, that is, “the Word was God,” not “God was the Word” (compare 4:24, “God is Spirit,” not “Spirit is God”). Even when the subject stands first, the definite article is often used to distinguish the subject from the predicate, as in 1 John 1:5 (“God is light”) and 4:8 and 16 (“God is love”). In our passage, “God” is virtually an attribute of the Word, just as spirit and light and love are attributes of God in these other texts. To some, this makes theos almost adjectival (as in James Moffatt’s translation, “the Logos was divine”), but it is no more an adjective than “spirit” or “light” or “love” are adjectives. To say “God is Spirit” is not the same as saying God is spiritual, and “God is love” says more than that God is loving. In the same way, “the Word was God” says more than “the Word was divine.” While “the Word was deity” is possible, it sounds too abstract, losing the simplicity and style of “the Word was God” with no corresponding gain in accuracy.
J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 47–48.
It also does not support you
John 1:1 is manifestly clear that the Word (Jesus) is God. Only the most obstinate denier of reality would rant against that fact.
