praise_yeshua
Well-known member
As is also found throughout the LXX.
The butchering of John 1:1 by JW anti-Trinitarian Translators
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
As is also found throughout the LXX.
civic
Well-known member
@praise_yeshua I have this saved from the good old days when Bowman and Ray were on the language forum with robr and elpis the best of the unitarians in those days. I have a much longer version of this old thread. Ray and I use to talk allot offline on the phone and via email until he went to go be with his Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Originally Posted by Elpis
Hi Robr,
I have read and reread the relevant passage in “Putting Jesus in his place” (in fact I have now ordered the book), and can only conclude that you are correct in maintaining that Bowman has only the Father in view in Rom 11:36.
Bowman says:
Here is his plain admission that ek is never used of the Son in the NT. If he believed that the Son was somehow included in Rom 11:36, he could not say that.
Bowman continues:
He clearly thinks that the NT writers should have used ek in relation to the Son, but his justification for their not doing so is the small number of occurrences of ek in this context in the NT. This does not seem a very satisfying explanation.
Bowman continues:
Again, he admits to the absence of the use of ek in relation to the Son. The conclusion Bowman makes though, has nothing to do with whether the Son is included in Rom 11:36, but a theological point about the Son’s inferiority. Bowman’s argument is not that the Son is included in Rom 11:36 – his argument is that there are not enough relevant occurrences of ek to draw a conclusion from the fact that he admits i.e. that ek is not used of the Son (and therefore not in Rom 11:36) – and his chart demonstrates that point.
In Hope.
Elpis.
Hi Elp: Welcome back, did you read Bowman's own explanation of his intent on the chart? He makes it as plain as day that his purpose is to illustrate the weakness inherent in the notorious argument from silence, as illustrated by the other passages. Hence, as he cites from Bauckham, in Romans 11:36 we have three "causal functions" cited with the prepositions "EK"...DIA
...and EIS.
Here' Bowman:
Bauckham rightly understands the three phases to express God's causation of all things in the three ways: God is the efficient cause (ex autou), the instrumental cause (di' autou), and the final cause (eis auton). All three of the prepositional phrases in Romans 11:36 occur in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which states, 'To us there is one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] are all things and we for him [eis auton], and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [di' hou] are all things and we through him [di' auton] (literal translation). As Bauckham notes, Paul here assigns two of the three causal functions of God to the Father and the third to Christ.
One should not infer from 1 Corinthians 8:6 that the causal functions assigned there to God the Father are not also applicable to the Son or vice versa (see table).
Now note, Elp, that Bowman refers to "causal functionS. . .with Romans 11:36 as the object of comparison. Bowman is arguing that the argument from silence is insufficient to justify RobR's conclusion that only God the Father is "in view" in Romans 11:36. Not only does he flat out say that we should not make RobR's inference, but he goes on to show that even EIS is assigned to the Son in another passage having to do with TA PANTA (Col. 1:16)...hence the failure to mention Jesus Christ in Romans 11:36 is not sufficient evidence to justify RobR's conclusion that 11:36 has only God the Father in view. And it is right at this point (where Bowman gives his caution against making Robr's inference), he has a footnote #12....note what he says in the footnote:
12. Similarly, one should not infer that the Father is not the 'one Lord' (which would mean that the Father is not Jehovah), nor that Jesus Christ is not the 'one God'".
So his footnote echoes his caution about the unreliable argument from silence in Romans 11:36, so his intent for the chart is to illustrate (by comparing other passages) the weakness inherent in the argument from silence. So he's not intending (as
RobR claims) to say that Romans 11:36 has only the Father in view. Instead his point is that even though the Son is not specified...does not justify RobR's inference that only God the Father is in view. ....and the footnote follows in the same pattern. The comparison of passages in the chart then intends to show how silence in one passage....is made up for in another. And with this pattern already established, he then argues that even though "EK" is applied only to the Father, "the absence of this wording with reference to Jesus is therefore too slender an argument from silence to prove any inferiority of the Son's role in creation."
So RobR was dead wrong to claim Bowman as a "hostile witness" since he openly and straight-forwardly argued for the Orthodox view and did not testify in any way aggreeable with RobR's claims. Bowman knows more about his intent in the chart than RobR or you or me. And I just showed what his intention was...and showed how that intention was pictured in the chart. His only putting God the Father over the Romans 11:36 example is exactly what we should expect with his intended goal in mind.....i.e. nobody denies that the Father is in view, but he also wants to show that it's not the Father alone who's in view, as RobR attempted to give Bowman credit for.
1st Cor. 8:4-6 shows that the Son as well as the Father are distinguished from TA PANTA by priority of existence, and that makes both true deity since only true deity exists before TA PANTA....and note also that both the Father and Christ are contrasted against the false deities of paganism. So there's plenty of evidence in just these two passages (11:36 & 8:4-6) to justify the Orthodox inclusion of identifying both as true Deity.
And again, Bowman in no way allows for RobR's inference that 11:36 has only the FAther in view. He proves the opposite and illustrates the same in his chart. He was clearly misrepresented.
Take care,
Ray
Originally Posted by Elpis
Hi Robr,
I have read and reread the relevant passage in “Putting Jesus in his place” (in fact I have now ordered the book), and can only conclude that you are correct in maintaining that Bowman has only the Father in view in Rom 11:36.
Bowman says:
Here is his plain admission that ek is never used of the Son in the NT. If he believed that the Son was somehow included in Rom 11:36, he could not say that.
Bowman continues:
He clearly thinks that the NT writers should have used ek in relation to the Son, but his justification for their not doing so is the small number of occurrences of ek in this context in the NT. This does not seem a very satisfying explanation.
Bowman continues:
Again, he admits to the absence of the use of ek in relation to the Son. The conclusion Bowman makes though, has nothing to do with whether the Son is included in Rom 11:36, but a theological point about the Son’s inferiority. Bowman’s argument is not that the Son is included in Rom 11:36 – his argument is that there are not enough relevant occurrences of ek to draw a conclusion from the fact that he admits i.e. that ek is not used of the Son (and therefore not in Rom 11:36) – and his chart demonstrates that point.
In Hope.
Elpis.
Hi Elp: Welcome back, did you read Bowman's own explanation of his intent on the chart? He makes it as plain as day that his purpose is to illustrate the weakness inherent in the notorious argument from silence, as illustrated by the other passages. Hence, as he cites from Bauckham, in Romans 11:36 we have three "causal functions" cited with the prepositions "EK"...DIA
...and EIS.
Here' Bowman:
Bauckham rightly understands the three phases to express God's causation of all things in the three ways: God is the efficient cause (ex autou), the instrumental cause (di' autou), and the final cause (eis auton). All three of the prepositional phrases in Romans 11:36 occur in 1 Corinthians 8:6, which states, 'To us there is one God, the Father, from whom [ex hou] are all things and we for him [eis auton], and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [di' hou] are all things and we through him [di' auton] (literal translation). As Bauckham notes, Paul here assigns two of the three causal functions of God to the Father and the third to Christ.
One should not infer from 1 Corinthians 8:6 that the causal functions assigned there to God the Father are not also applicable to the Son or vice versa (see table).
Now note, Elp, that Bowman refers to "causal functionS. . .with Romans 11:36 as the object of comparison. Bowman is arguing that the argument from silence is insufficient to justify RobR's conclusion that only God the Father is "in view" in Romans 11:36. Not only does he flat out say that we should not make RobR's inference, but he goes on to show that even EIS is assigned to the Son in another passage having to do with TA PANTA (Col. 1:16)...hence the failure to mention Jesus Christ in Romans 11:36 is not sufficient evidence to justify RobR's conclusion that 11:36 has only God the Father in view. And it is right at this point (where Bowman gives his caution against making Robr's inference), he has a footnote #12....note what he says in the footnote:
12. Similarly, one should not infer that the Father is not the 'one Lord' (which would mean that the Father is not Jehovah), nor that Jesus Christ is not the 'one God'".
So his footnote echoes his caution about the unreliable argument from silence in Romans 11:36, so his intent for the chart is to illustrate (by comparing other passages) the weakness inherent in the argument from silence. So he's not intending (as
RobR claims) to say that Romans 11:36 has only the Father in view. Instead his point is that even though the Son is not specified...does not justify RobR's inference that only God the Father is in view. ....and the footnote follows in the same pattern. The comparison of passages in the chart then intends to show how silence in one passage....is made up for in another. And with this pattern already established, he then argues that even though "EK" is applied only to the Father, "the absence of this wording with reference to Jesus is therefore too slender an argument from silence to prove any inferiority of the Son's role in creation."
So RobR was dead wrong to claim Bowman as a "hostile witness" since he openly and straight-forwardly argued for the Orthodox view and did not testify in any way aggreeable with RobR's claims. Bowman knows more about his intent in the chart than RobR or you or me. And I just showed what his intention was...and showed how that intention was pictured in the chart. His only putting God the Father over the Romans 11:36 example is exactly what we should expect with his intended goal in mind.....i.e. nobody denies that the Father is in view, but he also wants to show that it's not the Father alone who's in view, as RobR attempted to give Bowman credit for.
1st Cor. 8:4-6 shows that the Son as well as the Father are distinguished from TA PANTA by priority of existence, and that makes both true deity since only true deity exists before TA PANTA....and note also that both the Father and Christ are contrasted against the false deities of paganism. So there's plenty of evidence in just these two passages (11:36 & 8:4-6) to justify the Orthodox inclusion of identifying both as true Deity.
And again, Bowman in no way allows for RobR's inference that 11:36 has only the FAther in view. He proves the opposite and illustrates the same in his chart. He was clearly misrepresented.
Take care,
Ray
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
This is great!
It is sad that Matt and his crew got the way they did. At one time, they had a very good balance going there!
civic
Well-known member
yes the forum was at its peak then and went downhill rather quickly after Diane went to be with the Lord.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'm glad you said that. I agree completely. She could be tough but she was generally very fair.
civic
Well-known member
yes a very reasonable person. I had many offline conversations with her via email.
Exactly. The Apostles were just using the same name that the Alexandrian Jews had already assigned to God. This practice went all the way back to the 3rd Century BC. JW are so ignorant of history it's scandelous.
MTMattie
Well-known member
2 Thes 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
You simply are unable to actually read a biblical verse and not twist it to suit yourself. READ THIS.. We can help you to understand.
2 Thes 2 ....... Nasb95
2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders,
10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
11 For this reason God will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you [o]from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, [r]that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,
17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HERE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT CATHOLSISM WAS FORETOLD HERE. NOTHING
THERE IS NOTHING HERE ABOUT ANY CHURCH BUT IF IT IS AS YOU SAY... I SAY IT WAS THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS NOT THE RCC.
IS SATAN IN THE CHURCH TODAY? MOST CERTAINLY. MY FORMER CHURCH WITH A STUDY OF THE GODDESS SOPHIA,
AS WELL AS ORDAINING AND MARRYING GAYS...
AND POSSIBLY IN MY EVANGELICAL ONE WITH THE USE OF THE NIV
YES IN THE RCC. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE PEDOPHILES TO NAME ONE THING.
AND ALL MAINLINE PROTESTANT CHURCHES.
AND I GUARANTEE YOURS TOO.......
Dont blame it all on the RCC... Martin Luther did try to distance from them.
And Satan did not start the church... he just snuck in when no one was looking... His crowning glory had to have been Pope Pius' relationship to Hitler.
I am not Catholic. I disbelieve most every thing about the way they worship. But Satan is not the one who started that church....
Runningman
Well-known member
Good point. I guess the main reason why no one ever came out and talked about it in Scripture is because it’s not a divine revelation about who God is,
One thing I firmly believe that if the Trinity were real then we should just be able to plug in the word “Trinity” into verses that say “God” and it would be coherent and make perfect sense.
Try this anywhere in the Bible. Replacing the word God with Trinity anywhere results in contradictions, word salad, and mountains of error. Furthermore, you would have thought something as important as who God is would have been paramount in the teaching about the gospel. No one said believe in the Trinity or believe Jesus is God to be saved.
Consistently the only true God is the Father in the Bible.
I think where we part ways with the Trinitarian religion is we approach the Bible from a hardline conservative and evidence-based perspective while the Trinitarians are generally more liberal and elevate church creeds, traditions, feelings, and beliefs above Scripture. Case in point, the Trinity isn’t described in the Bible already. So it’s best to call the Trinity a doctrine, but recognize it’s also false.
To add to this, straight quoting scripture isn’t the way to defeat Trinitarianism as you have already seen. Even with all of the Unitarian proof texts, as I am sure you have experienced, cant necessarily reach them. Christianity is mainly for those who have a heart open to it. People can reach a point, whether they be Satanists, Trinitarians, Nazis, and the like where they just can’t hear anything else without a fundamental change in their heart and mind.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Well-known member
They keep throwing John 1:1 in front of me even after I have already given detailed data on that verse. Today I wrote...
I can say that in my beginning there was my word, and my word was with me, and my word was me. And that does not make my words a living thing. Only a fool would think my words were another me. It says Word. Words are not living things. I should not have to tell you this. We teach children in first grade that words are not alive.
Runningman
Well-known member
Yes the language of John 1:1 is a Unitarian prooftext and the entire narrative of the chapter supports the exclusive deity of God the Father. People can argue and argue like a good lawyer but we know that the Word is not The God in John 1:1.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I agree. It impossible for YOU to emulate this. You can't. However, your experience has nothing to do with this. You're not Jesus Christ nor will you ever be Jesus Christ. He is better than you.
How many times do I have to tell you this before you believe it?
Peterlag
Well-known member
It says word. It does not say Jesus. It does not say God. What am I talking to? A bunch of first graders? I have to tell them that words are not living things.
Runningman
Well-known member
a word or words are never a person in the Old Testament. I think people can’t accept that the Bible isn’t 100% literal. Ever seen all the verses where the logos of God snd Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence? What about 1 John 1:1-3 where the Word of life is eternal life and apostle John said it’s a thing? I’ve seen nothing but straight denials when it comes to these hard questions about the logos.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Like.... Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue:
Pro 10:31 The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
Runningman
Well-known member
Good examples of metaphor. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There's a lot of figures or speech in the Bible. They have always been used in all languages and are still used often today.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Yes. That is how I believe you treat Jesus Christ. Just a "figure of speech".
MTMattie
Well-known member
3 translations...
Try John 8: especially 24.... posted to not take out of context.
NASB95
21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
25So they were saying to Him, “Who are You?” Jesus said to them, “What have I been saying to you from the beginning?
26“I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world.”
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29“And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.”
30As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
CJB
21 Again he told them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, but you will die in your sin — where I am going, you cannot come.”
22 The Judeans said, “Is he going to commit suicide? Is that what he means when he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23 Yeshua said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24 This is why I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not trust that I AM [who I say I am], you will die in your sins.”
25 At this, they said to him, “You? Who are you?” Yeshua answered, “Just what I’ve been telling you from the start.
26 There are many things I could say about you, and many judgments I could make. However, the One who sent me is true; so I say in the world only what I have heard from him.”
27 They did not understand that he was talking to them about the Father.
28 So Yeshua said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM [who I say I am], and that of myself I do nothing, but say only what the Father has taught me.
29 Also, the One who sent me is still with me; he did not leave me to myself, because I always do what pleases him.”
30 Many people who heard him say these things trusted in him.
Peshitta
21Yeshua spoke again to them: “I am moving on and you will seek me and you will die in your sins, and where I am going, you cannot come.”
22The Judeans were saying, “Will he now kill himself?”, because he had said, “Where I am going, you cannot come.”
23And he said to them, “You are from below and I am from above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.”
24“I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins.”
25The Judeans were saying, “Who are you?” Yeshua said to them, “Even though I have begun to talk with you,
26There are many things for me to say and judge concerning you, but he who has sent me is true, and those things that I have heard from him, these things I am speaking in the world.”
27And they did not know that he spoke to them about The Father.
28Yeshua spoke again to them: “When you have lifted up The Son of Man, then you shall know that I AM THE LIVING GOD, and I do nothing for my own pleasure, but just as my Father has taught me, so I am speaking.
29And he who has sent me is with me, and my Father has not left me alone, because I am doing always what is beautiful to him.”
30When he was speaking these things, many trusted in him.
Gotta loved that Peshitta