Search results

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...

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...

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...

This thread has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic which, by board policy, must not be discussed.

Let’s start with the Tyndale Bible. Have you seen it before? https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Tyndale/43/1 The link will take you directly to John 1.

That’s an important point. Yet they didn’t translate the prologue in the way which you believe is more accurate. My point. My question remains, why? That’s right. Their identities and beliefs are known to all who care to examine the matter. No, I‘m pointing out that they don’t all share the...

Great. How many English translations published prior to 1611 have you seen? Do you recall specifically which ones among that group that you’ve seen? Is the Geneva Bible the only one from that group that you’ve seen?

I don’t agree with that at all. Translators themselves talk about bias in their translations, and they aren’t accusing themselves or anyone else of being intellectually dishonest. I mean that everyone approaches scripture with an understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual...

Thank you for your interest. I’ll do it, but that doesn’t answer the question I asked you - Have you not seen them before?

Which is why the Apostles’ creed explicitly identifies the Father as the creator? I believe that Jesus’ God, not Jesus, is the creator.

I haven’t accused anyone of intellectual dishonesty.

I will. Have you not seen them before? Translator bias is real.

This isn’t complicated. I didn’t say that you cherry picked your list. I simply said that your list is incomplete, as it doesn’t include all English translations. Your list doesn’t include any English translations published prior to 1611.

It should be. Historically, translations prepared and published by trinitarians prior to 1611 aren’t in line with your belief. At the very least that should cause you to wonder why those who believe what you believe didn’t translate the prologue in the way which you believe is more accurate...

Agreed. The word / logos in John 1:1-5 is not the Son in English translations prepared and published (by trinitarians) prior to 1611.

Your list does not include all translations. It includes only the translations which you believe are more accurate.

You haven’t yet been able to account for why trinitarian translators decided to refer to the logos as “it”. Paul is writing here not about the Father, but rather the Son. My contention is that which is made by the Apostles’ creed.

Your list, having omitted the translations you believe are less accurate, is incomplete.

Once again, I’m asking our readers to think about why the translators of the Geneva Bible (and all English translations prior to KJV from the Greek manuscripts) - all trinitarians - made the decision to refer to the word as “it” in John’s prologue.

It’s content that I’m interested. The majority didn’t prior to 1611, and many since don’t. What we’re reading in all of these translations are translator interpretations. They saw exactly what we saw. The grammatical gender for logos is masculine. The question really isn’t what they saw...