How is it that you cannot see?
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don’t believe Jesus is an “it”. Do you @marks?
Proceeding on the assumption that you don’t, would you be able to agree that the Protestant Reformers didn’t either?
Here’s my simple point. The Geneva Bible translation, produced and published by Protestant Reformers who did not believe Jesus is an “it”, prepared and produced a translation wherein the logos is presented to their readers of John’s prologue as “it”. Their translation of the prologue, therefore, is not speaking about Jesus.
Their understanding of Jesus aligns with yours. Their translation of the prologue in John’s Gospel does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compromise what they believed about Jesus.
Proceeding on the assumption that you don’t, would you be able to agree that the Protestant Reformers didn’t either?
Here’s my simple point. The Geneva Bible translation, produced and published by Protestant Reformers who did not believe Jesus is an “it”, prepared and produced a translation wherein the logos is presented to their readers of John’s prologue as “it”. Their translation of the prologue, therefore, is not speaking about Jesus.
Their understanding of Jesus aligns with yours. Their translation of the prologue in John’s Gospel does not in any way, shape, form or fashion compromise what they believed about Jesus.
Wrong direction here. Whichever English translations I have or haven't seen isn't what is at issue. You claimed that all English translations prior to 1611 translated the Greek "He" as "it", so I'm asking you to support that claim, by showing me the English translations that were done prior to 1611.
I'm not interested in links to sites one by one by one. Yes I've seen Tyndale, next will be Bishop's, I imagine, but again, that's not the issue. No need to drag this out, just post the list of quotes and that will be fine.
They understood, I imagine. You yourself have said they were trinitarians, didn't you? That would be a good indicator that they correctly understood. Regardless of how they translated the pronouns, they realized that Jesus is God the Son. That to me says that they most certainly understood some of the most fundamental truth of Scripture.
Much love!
We were discussing the masculine gender of autou as used in John 1:3-4.Not sure where you are getting your informatio from but houtos means that, not him, which is the actual word in the original. So, there is that.
Quick questions for you; do you admit that Jesus sits on the right hand of God and was raised by God, who is Jesus' father?
I'll consider whether I'm interested to answer your question. We've done this before. If you are asking if God the Father is the Father of God the Son, then that's your answer.
Much love!
It is an issue for me. Why would I need to quote translations which you’ve already seen?
I’ve said it a couple of times already, but I’ll repeat it again since it seems not to be clearly conveyed - I will.
Okay.
So there are now at least three translations which you’ve seen (Tyndale, Bishop’s and Geneva) that refer to the logos in John’s prologue as “it”. There are more, and I will produce them for you.
As you wish.
Yes.
See their understanding that the logos is “it” in John’s prologue. That is a good indicator to me that they understood what John was saying in the prologue.
That’s not what this thread is about.
Then you (and others) will have this thread closed (and possibly deleted) by the moderators. Is that what you want?
I want no discussion about the topic which cannot be discussed. The Geneva Bible, and others like it, are not discussing the subject which cannot be discussed.
I think it’s a shame that the policy handcuffs those who want to discuss it but that is beyond my control.
You are using a trinitarian argument in your anti-trinitarian argument. You are attempting to remove Christ from a passage using what you consider evidence from those who believe Him to be there. How is it you cannot see this?
Forget about the difference in the translation for a moment. It's pretty clear we both know that translators have differed on this point. For myself, I think the more literal the better, that if the word is masculine, show it that way. Regardless of that, I believe Christ to be the Creator of everything, to be YHWH Himself. And as I understand it, that's also what the translators of these other Bibles believed also. So why don't you?
It's wasn't an "idea" that took on flesh, it was a Person, and that Person is also identified as The Word. And His Name is the Word of God. This same Word Who took on flesh, Who set aside His sovereignty to become a servant.
Much love!
I’m presenting what trinitarian translators produced and published in English transalations prior to 1611. There are nine of them. You already know about three of them.
I’m not accusing them of removing Christ from any passage. (My contention is that they haven’t.) You, apparently, are.
That’s not what this thread is about.
That’s also not what this thread is about.
No worries, it's just a forum, and you don't have to do anything you don't want to. I didn't think it would be a problem for you. Normally I'd expect that people would support their assertions, but it's not that important when you get down to it, in this instance, in my mind.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Yea, and I pointed out how often houtas, which means that is taken in v2 as he. No comment?
Last edited:
What was you motive, interest, underneath it all, what were you intending with your OP? Why the shout out to @Tommy Cool ? What did you expect him to see?
Much love!
Presenting my understanding of who the creator is, expressed in the prologue of John’s Gospel as rendered in the Geneva Bible (and translations like it.)
My understanding of who the creator is has nothing to do with the topic which must not be discussed on this board.
I have no interest in discussing your deity. My interest is discussing only my deity.
He was recently involved in a similar discussion in a forum which I, by choice, don’t have posting privileges in. If I understand him correctly, his understanding is compatible with mine. I was / am looking for confirmation of that from him. There may also be others.
The title of this thread is taken directly from that conversation of his - words which were directed to him by the person whom he was speaking with.
Thank you for your clarification.
It's not that you are saying Jesus is not the Creator, you are saying that the Creator is someone who is not Jesus.
And you are hoping find other members who believe the same.
Do I understand correctly?
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
