Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

[synergy]

“In the begynnynge was the worde, and the word was with God, and the worde was God. The same was in the begynnynge with God. All things were made by it and without it was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and and lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the the darknes, but the darknes comprehended it not.”

(John 1:1-5, Matthew’s Bible, 1537)

What is the Matthew Bible? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Matthew Bible? What is Matthew’s Bible / Matthew’s Version? When was the Matthew Bible created?

www.gotquestions.org

That’s five @synergy. There will be more.

So you want to play the numbers game. OK, I can play that game. I counted at least two dozen English bibles with "He was" in John 1:2 (https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-2.htm) and most importantly I have the Koine Greek Bible on my side.

Once you start trusting in your Greek training, you will acknowledge what the originals did actually write.

 

[synergy]

No. I place Tyndale above you. Far above you.

I didn't author the Greek Grammar books so your issue is not with me.
I'm sure you can register your grievances at any or all Greek Grammar book publisher locations.

He knew what he was doing and you’ve admitted that you don’t know why he did what he did.

Do tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Make your case. I'm waiting....

It’s not my choice.

Who is making your choices if it's not you?

When you return you’ll find that I’ve posted another translation in support of Tyndale and those who translated the prologue in the same manner that he did.

The important thing is what did the originals say. You can focus on that or carry on with your numbers game. The choice is yours.

Unless you’re doing some research during your absence, you still won’t have the faintest idea why they did what they did.

My focus is on the originals. If you want to chase rabbit holes and concoct smoke screens so as to distract us from the originals then that's on you. Use your Greek training and focus on the originals.

 

[Matthias]

So you want to play the numbers game. OK, I can play that game. I counted at least two dozen English bibles with "He was" in John 1:2 (https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-2.htm) and most importantly I have the Koine Greek Bible on my side.

Once you start trusting in your Greek training, you will acknowledge what the originals did actually write.

You’re missing the point. There shouldn’t be any Bibles which say “it” if Greek grammar doesn’t allow it. There are dozens of them that do.

Greek grammar does allow it. Some of the finest minds that ever walked the hallways of trinitarianism produced translations which acknowledge it. You need to find out why it does and why they did.

 

[Matthias]

I didn't author the Greek Grammar books so your issue is not with me.
I'm sure you can register your grievances at any or all Greek Grammar book publisher locations.

There’s nothing wrong with Greek Grammar books.

Do tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Make your case. I'm waiting....

Who is making your choices if it's not you?

The important thing is what did the originals say. You can focus on that or carry on with your numbers game. The choice is yours.

My focus is on the originals. If you want to chase rabbit holes and concoct smoke screens so as to distract us from the originals then that's on you. Use your Greek training and focus on the originals.

You have the originals?

You really do believe that Tyndale, and the other trinitarians who translate the passage in the same or similar manner as he does, didn’t focus on the Greek manuscripts and didn’t know / understand Greek grammar.

That’s pretty shocking. Have you discussed it with others? If so, what did they tell you?

 

[Matthias]

I'm willing to explore and exercise critical thinking.

I’d like to hear more about the efforts you’ve made to explore why Tyndale and other trinitarian scholars translate John’s prologue in the manner which they do.

How much time have you spent on it? What have you been able to learn about their reason for doing what they did?

With the Internet, it takes less than a minute to find out.

 

[synergy]

You’re missing the point. There shouldn’t be any Bibles which say “it” if Greek grammar doesn’t allow it. There are dozens of them that do.

Greek grammar does allow it. Some of the finest minds that ever walked the hallways of trinitarianism produced translations which acknowledge it. You need to find out why it does and why they did.

John's understanding is far higher than anyone else's, except maybe for Paul. That's why John penned οὗτος (He) instead of αυτό (It).
I'll stick with John. You can stick with whomever you please.

 

[synergy]

There’s nothing wrong with Greek Grammar books.

Good.

You have the originals?

The 4th century manuscripts are the closest we have to the originals. Did you consult them when you took Greek classes?

You really do believe that Tyndale, and the other trinitarians who translate the passage in the same or similar manner as he does, didn’t focus on the Greek manuscripts and didn’t know / understand Greek grammar.
That’s pretty shocking. Have you discussed it with others? If so, what did they tell you?

I didn't say that. I trust that they did consult Greek manuscripts.
Either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

 

[Matthias]

John's understanding is far higher than anyone else's, except maybe for Paul. That's why John penned οὗτος (He) instead of αυτό (It).
I'll stick with John. You can stick with whomever you please.

Tyndale stuck with what John wrote. So did the other trinitarians who translated the prologue of John’s Gospel in the same or similar way that he did.

”You’re an ignorant man.”

That’s what someone said to me. And he was right. I was raised KJVO. I knew nothing about other English translations. I say nothing, but that’s not quite right. I knew that other translations existed.

You’re an ignorant man. Before we began our discussion about John’s prologue, I asked you if you had read the Geneva Bible. You told me that you hadn’t. English translations which translate the prologue in that manner was breaking news to you, just as it was breaking news to me when I first learned about it.

We’re all ignorant about some things. The solution to ignorance is education.

You’re ignorant about why Tyndale and others did what they did. Rather than find out why he and they did, you label him / them as “grammar illiterate.” All that does is to slander them and allow you to remain in ignorance.

 

[Matthias]

The 4th century manuscripts are the closest we have to the originals. Did you consult them when you took Greek classes?

Certainly.

I didn't say that. I trust that they did consult Greek manuscripts.

You said that they were “grammar illiterates”. People who are grammar illiterates don’t consult Greek manuscripts.

Either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

Tyndale trusted in the Greek language. See his case.

You told me that you’re willing to explore and exercise critical thinking. Then do it.

You don’t have to wait. You can know in less than a minute, if you’re willing to invest 60 seconds of your time.

 

[synergy]

I’d like to hear more about the efforts you’ve made to explore why Tyndale and other trinitarian scholars translate John’s prologue in the manner which they do.

How much time have you spent on it? What have you been able to learn about their reason for doing what they did?

With the Internet, it takes less than a minute to find out.

I did exercise critical thinking in going to the source of the matter. That's part of critical thinking. You analyze the symptoms in order to arrive at the source of the matter. The source is John 1:2 in Koine Greek which says οὗτος (He) and not αυτό (It). Is what I did part of critical thinking, yes or no?

 

[Matthias]

I did exercise critical thinking in going to the source of the matter. That's part of critical thinking. You analyze the symptoms in order to arrive at the source of the matter. The source is John 1:2 in Koine Greek which says οὗτος (He) and not αυτό (It). Is what I did part of critical thinking, yes or no?

What a pity that you weren’t around to teach Greek grammar to Tyndale!

 

[synergy]

Tyndale stuck with what John wrote. So did the other trinitarians who translated the prologue of John’s Gospel in the same or similar way that he did.

”You’re an ignorant man.”

That’s what someone said to me. And he was right. I was raised KJVO. I knew nothing about other English translations. I say nothing, but that’s not quite right. I knew that other translations existed.

You’re an ignorant man. Before we began our discussion about John’s prologue, I asked you if you had read the Geneva Bible. You told me that you hadn’t. English translations which translate the prologue in that manner was breaking news to you, just as it was breaking news to me when I first learned about it.

We’re all ignorant about some things. The solution to ignorance is education.

You’re ignorant about why Tyndale and others did what they did. Rather than find out why he and they did, you label him / them as “grammar illiterate.” All that does is to slander them and allow you to remain in ignorance.

Like clockwork, the Ad Hominems start flying from your keyboard. I'm used to them from other forums so skin off my back. I've been called many very-descriptive derogatory things. @civic can vouch for that.

My suggestion to you is to trust in your Greek schooling. You made a deliberate effort to learn Greek so profit from it. Take the next step and trust in the Greek education. Either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

 

[synergy]

What a pity that you weren’t around to teach Greek grammar to Tyndale!

No need to get snarky.

Again, either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

 

[Matthias]

Like clockwork, the Ad Hominems start flying from your keyboard. I'm used to them from other forums so skin off my back. I've been called many very-descriptive derogatory things.

If you’re asserting that you aren’t ignorant about why Tyndale and others translated John’s prologue in the way that they did and you find objectionable, then why are you asking me to tell you why they did what they did?

My suggestion to you is to trust in your Greek schooling. You made a deliberate effort to learn Greek so profit from it. Take the next step and trust in the Greek education. Either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

If you won’t listen to Tyndale, why would you listen to me?

 

[Matthias]

No need to get snarky.

Again, either you trust in the Greek language or you need to make a case for the Word to be referred to as an "it". You have done neither. I'm waiting....

Tyndale trusted in the Greek language. In the time you’ve spent talking with me, just this morning alone, you could have found out why he did what he did.

A man who would slander Tyndale is a man who would slander others whom he is not in agreement with.

 

[Matthias]

Davar. Hebrew word of the day.

 

[Matthias]

Strong's Greek: 846. αὐτός (autos) -- (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same

 

[APAK]

“In the begynnynge was the worde, and the word was with God, and the worde was God. The same was in the begynnynge with God. All things were made by it and without it was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and and lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the the darknes, but the darknes comprehended it not.”

(John 1:1-5, Matthew’s Bible, 1537)

What is the Matthew Bible? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Matthew Bible? What is Matthew’s Bible / Matthew’s Version? When was the Matthew Bible created?

www.gotquestions.org

That’s five @synergy. There will be more.

Many see and get the HE alright and do not get, IT. Give them another dozen more early translations of 'it' created .....in John 1, and still this will never satisfy to persuade or convince, as many of these minds has become trained over time to immediately freeze, become rigid, unpersuasive, unresponsive, and unreasonable when there are no effective answers to fire back.

Even the truly original KJV 1611 version has the 'it' scattered in it, and I do not like the KJV for many other reasons.

 

[civic]

Many see and get the HE alright and do not get, IT. Give them another dozen more early translations of 'it' created .....in John 1, and still this will never satisfy to persuade or convince, as many of these minds has become trained over time to immediately freeze, become rigid, unpersuasive, unresponsive, and unreasonable when there are no effective answers to fire back.

Even the truly original KJV 1611 version has the 'it' scattered in it, and I do not like the KJV for many other reasons.

So God is an " it " and not a " WHO " ?

 

[Matthias]

“so is my word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

(Isaiah 55:11, NIV)

That’s what John had in mind when he wrote the prologue to his Gospel. That is what Tyndale and others saw John speaking about when he said God’s word was with with him.