Search results

Read the book if you get a chance to. It is close to impossible not to agree with him. He quotes the original sources. He also provides references to other scholars - virtually all of whom are trinitarian (he takes issue with a non-trinitarian scholar - rightly so, imo) - who say the same thing...

Jesus Christ was never an “it” but God’s logos was. John is speaking about one person, not two - and certainly not three! - in his prologue.

The book is excellent. I highly recommend it to all.

Had you lived prior to 1611 and been reading English translations of John’s prologue translated directly from Greek into English, “it” is the only word you would have read. You suggest that the Geneva Bible is incorrect in this instance. In order to be consistent you would further have to...

This afternoon I enrolled in another free online course offered by Hillsdale College. This one is titled “The History of Classical Music: Pythagoras through Beethoven”. *** This brings back fond memories of my Music Appreciation class in the 8th grade. I’ve long since forgotten the name of my...

I find much support for my position in the writings of trinitarian scholarship. Your comment brings to mind something I read a few days ago in a book that I’m about to finish reading: ”The Arian debates had shown that both sides were able to quote the scriptures ad infinitum without...

* A case of “a word to the wise is sufficient”? Maybe. I exercise caution whenever and wherever I eat away from home. If my wife was going to poison me she would have done it long before now. *

I believe Jesus preexisted in the mind of God before he was miraculously begotten by God in the womb of the virgin, as described in the birth narratives (Matthew and Luke). I don’t see anything at all written by John (or anyone else in scripture) which contradicts it. That’s called notional, or...

The key to reconciling the KJV rendering (“he”) with the Geneva Bible rendering (“it”) in the prologue of John’s Gospel is reading the KJV remdering as personification of God’s davar / logos. Cp. John’s own commentary on his prologue (which was already in the 1st century being misused / abused...

Modalism is also not for me. Reconciliation of the translations doesn’t require it and other texts in scripture, in my view, exclude it entirely. Contrary to what some members on Christianity Board have told me in the past*, reconciling “he” (KJV) and “it” (Geneva Bible) is simple. The problem...

You say ”not it” but the Geneva Bible translators say “it”. Look at it again. How do we reconcile “he” (King James) with “it” (Geneva Bible}?

Yes. The OT background of davar is the concept to keep in mind when reading the prologue. It was with God and was God. Do you see that in the Geneva Bible rendering? It, davar, the self-expression of the Messiah’s God, became flesh. A person isn’t an it. John is speaking about the...