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

[Diserner]

Better to remain silent than to accuse those translators of being grammar illiterates. That’s rock bottom.

I clearly said I think "it" can be personal.

Also this particular word would best be translated something like "This."

It's like when you say "This one—he will change the world," or something.

I would not exalt Tyndale as the most authorative Greek Grammarian of all time though, lol.

 

[Matthias]

I appeal to the original Greek, Jesus and the Apostles. I'm no respecter of persons. They had their place in history but were not inspired by God like the Apostles who are my authority. You can continue trusting in uninspired men I will not.

This isn’t a rhetorical question; Do you believe William Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators were grammar illiterates?

 

[Matthias]

I clearly said I think "it" can be personal.

Also this particular word would best be translated something like "This."

It's like when you say "This one—he will change the world," or something.

I would not exalt Tyndale as the most authorative Greek Grammarian of all time though, lol.

I was talking about them, not you. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear about that.

 

[civic]

This isn’t a rhetorical question; Do you believe William Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators were grammar illiterates?

That is not the point and they like all translators made errors in their translations because of bias. Its the original documents that are inspired by God. Basics 101.

But the NWT was done by illiterates that is for sure.

 

[civic]

I was talking about them, not you. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear about that.

When you want to discuss the Scripture instead of people let us know.

 

[Matthias]

When you want to discuss the Scripture instead of people let us know.

Roll on , edited. Talk about me all you want.

 

[Fred]

Roll on , hypocrite. Talk about me all you want.

Is it okay for people today to render latreuō unto the Lord Jesus?

 

[civic]

Roll on , edited. Talk about me all you want.

Lets discuss scripture it that to big of an ask ? There are other places here to discuss bible trranslators/translations.

 

[civic]

Is it okay for people today to render latreuō unto the Lord Jesus?

Absolutely and proneskeou.

 

[Matthias]

That is not the point and they like all translators made errors in their translations because of bias. Its the original documents that are inspired by God. Basics 101.

But the NWT was done by illiterates that is for sure.

Tyndale and the others didn’t make an error in their translations of John’s prologue.

There is no trinitarian bias in calling the word of God “it”. None. Every person on the planet, no matter their theology, should be able to agree that the spoken word is “it”.

 

[Matthias]

Lets discuss scripture it that to big of an ask ? There are other places here to discuss bible trranslators/translations.

Translation is the key issue here.

“Grammar illiterates” the trinitarian translators were not.

 

[civic]

Is it okay for people today to render latreuō unto the Lord Jesus?

In Matthew 4 I tend to think proskeuno and latreuo are being used interchangeably here, having the same definitional motif, as meaning sacred service to the one true God. But since you're drawing a distinction between "worship" [proskueno] and "service" [latreuo] here, I would be curious to see your definitions of these two words in this particular context?

The NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJ, 21c KJV, Young’s Literal Transl., Wycliffe NT, and the ESV all distinguish between “worship” and “service” in Matthew 4:9-10. I’ve yet to find a version that doesn’t.

Outside of Philippians 3:3; Hebrews 9:9; 10:2, latreuo is invariably rendered “to serve.” That meaning is more than possible in Philippians 3:3, as P. T. O’Brien says, “The choice of latreuw here is deliberate, given that in the LXX it denoted the service rendered to God as his peculiar people.” [Epistle to the Philippians, p.360.] In Hebrews 9:9; 10:2 “to serve” is the proper reading. [See Alan C. Mitchell, Daniel J. Harrington, Hebrews, p.161: “ ‘Serve’ latreuin is sometimes synonymous with ‘minister’ leitourgein.”]

Certainly, in Matthew 4:9-10 there is conceptual overlap between “worship” and “service”: to worship is a form of service. But as used through the LXX and NT, latreuo is more generic.

 

[civic]

Tyndale and the others didn’t make an error in their translations of John’s prologue.

There is no trinitarian bias in calling the word of God “it”. None. Every person on the planet, no matter their theology, should be able to agree that the spoken word is “it”.

The it is a Person not a thing,

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Translation is the key issue here.

“Grammar illiterates” the trinitarian translators were not.

Then you should heed them since they call Christ God in many places and YHWH.

We call it cherry picking what you are doing.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

The it is a Person not a thing,

hope this helps !!!

The “it” is not a person. The thing is the “it”.

What is the thing? The word God spoke,

I’ve said this before and it hasn’t helped. Maybe saying it this way will.

That’s what Tyndale and the other trinitarians saw that John was speaking about in the prologue of his Gospel.

God spoke a word, “Let there be …”

 

[civic]

The Word in John 1:1 is the same Word here in 1 John 1:1- A Person, not an it.

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 of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Word is a Person who became a man

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth

1 John 5:7- TYNDALE
For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one

 

[Matthias]

The Word in John 1:1 is the same Word here in 1 John 1:1- A Person, not an it.

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 of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

No. That reads the word made flesh back into the prologue.

 

[Fred]

In Matthew 4 I tend to think proskeuno and latreuo are being used interchangeably here, having the same definitional motif, as meaning sacred service to the one true God.

In the NT both words are in reference to the worship due unto God alone.

 

[civic]

No. That reads the word made flesh back into the prologue.

TYNDALE your authority on 1 John 5:7

For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one

 

[civic]

In the NT both words are in reference to the worship due unto God alone.

ditto