I don't see how that answered my question.It's better than Jesus repenting of his (own) nonexistent sin.
Much love!
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 see how that answered my question.It's better than Jesus repenting of his (own) nonexistent sin.
Best MSS? You mean the one found in the trash? The 3 that share only about 75% agreement? Manuscripts which were not even available for 1000 years? Is this become a manuscript discussion? And you prefer the modern Alexandrian versions.Are you aware of why most modern Bible's omit "Lord" from 1 Corinthians 15:47 and replace it with "man?"
Trinitarian commentary Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says this:
"The second man is the Lord from heaven.—Better, the second man is from heaven. The words “the Lord,” which occur in the English version, are not in the best Greek MSS. The word which is twice rendered “of” in this verse has the force of “from,” “originating from,” in the Greek. The first representative man was from the earth, the second representative man was from heaven; and as was the first earthly Adam, so are we in our merely physical condition; and as is the second heavenly Adam, so shall we be in our heavenly state."
So does this mean that you are in fact JW?I am Spirit anointed but do not believe I am part of the 144,000.
I’m only a 2nd class Christian. But I thank God for choosing me, warts and all.
When we read the Bible we want to read things within their appropriate context based on the most accurate information. The Bible has been fiddled with a lot over the years and there are a lot of issues with getting to the bottom of what the truth is. Jesus is a heavenly man just like Jesus said when he is the "Son of Man" that descended from heaven.Best MSS? You mean the one found in the trash? The 3 that share only about 75% agreement? Manuscripts which were not even available for 1000 years? Is this become a manuscript discussion? And you prefer the modern Alexandrian versions.
Got it.
Will you have the same reply to my next passage?
Because I came here to see your reply there, and you've totally skirted the question. Did you even think about it? What about the rest? He's from heaven. Adam was made from dirt, and Jesus came from heaven. You can dispute over the word "Lord", what about the rest??
Here's the next.
John 6:38 KJV
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
He is the Son of God who God sent, but he's a human who was born in Israel.Where is Jesus from? What will you answer??
Much love!
What does that mean?He is the Son of God who God sent, but he's a human who was born in Israel.
No. I am not JW but have disdain for those who violate Romans 14:1 in relentlessly bashing this denomination who holds to ideals not common in Christendom.So does this mean that you are in fact JW?
Much love!
Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.The constant vitriol against the JW is nothing short of hate.
I think the biggest division is created over who we believe Jesus is.who holds to ideals not common in Christendom.
Yup. Your IDOL is the cause of the biggest division. The good news is that Jesus is YHWH’s anointed, a selected man to reconcile humanity to YHWH. The JW’s believe this as far as I can tell.I think the biggest division is created over who we believe Jesus is.
Yes, I think you've become confused. There is certainly no need to continue.relentlessly attacking
..................................................It can be "a god" I admit, but "theos" can also be used in a qualitative sense (the quality, attributes, or characteristics of someone or something.) The language in John 1 doesn't require the Word be a literal pre-existent being as a result.
For example, 2 Corinthians 1:12 refers to godly sorrow. 2 Corinthians 7:11 refers to a godly sort. 1 Tim 1:4 refers to godly edification. Each of these describe qualities of someone or something, even though they use the same exact word for the Word is theos in John 1:1.
This is the challenge with translating something. So even though I don't disagree with your translation, I say it's at least subjective if there are no examples of the Word pre-existing as a god. Are there any? Perhaps not. I can't find anything clear or explicit though I have a suspicion you could be right.
We can just as easily say that John 1:1 applies personification to the Word and there is ample evidence for that, too, where the Word (logos) and Jesus are in the same context they are not the same person or thing. 1 John 1:1-3 also refers to the "Word of Life" as an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man.
Just something to think about.
850th post in an attack thread on this denomination! You’re in denial.I think you've become confused.
I'm just responding to posts. I guess you are responding to me based on other people's posts. So there ya go!850th post in an attack thread on this denomination! You’re in denial.
I showed you the difference in the Greek lexicons, they are different for the single purpose of God and god. Trinity translation has it correct at 2 Cor 4:4, translating works the same at both spots.Everybody concedes that "god" is ascribed in Scripture to non-deity beings and even mortal beings dozens of times. I thought we were discussing whether John 1:1 was such a time. And my point was simply that with all capitals in the original, your claim in Post #816 ("Like capitol G God to the word at John 1:1, it is not that way in the Greek lexicons. Its why throughout history Greek scholars translated a god into many translations.") cannot be right.
Now, if you want to advance a different argument for "why throughout history Greek scholars translated a god into many translations" -- and can sneak it past the moderators -- have at it.
If the word was God( capitol G) then in plain English your second line in trinity translations says-And God was with God= impossible.It can be "a god" I admit, but "theos" can also be used in a qualitative sense (the quality, attributes, or characteristics of someone or something.) The language in John 1 doesn't require the Word be a literal pre-existent being as a result.
For example, 2 Corinthians 1:12 refers to godly sorrow. 2 Corinthians 7:11 refers to a godly sort. 1 Tim 1:4 refers to godly edification. Each of these describe qualities of someone or something, even though they use the same exact word for the Word is theos in John 1:1.
This is the challenge with translating something. So even though I don't disagree with your translation, I say it's at least subjective if there are no examples of the Word pre-existing as a god. Are there any? Perhaps not. I can't find anything clear or explicit though I have a suspicion you could be right.
We can just as easily say that John 1:1 applies personification to the Word and there is ample evidence for that, too, where the Word (logos) and Jesus are in the same context they are not the same person or thing. 1 John 1:1-3 also refers to the "Word of Life" as an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man.
Just something to think about.
I find it funny that trinitarians cannot consider a linguistic explanation to explain how a thing can be another thing AND with that other thing at the same time.I showed you the difference in the Greek lexicons, they are different for the single purpose of God and god.
Have you ever read what Catholic priest and highly acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., wrote RE: John 1:1?How well do you know Koine Greek? Are you educated in it? Self studied?
I've never agreed with the Kingdom Hall version of John 1:1. It's polytheistic at best, and that's in complete disagreement with the Scriptures, so I know immediately without being a Greek scholar that their version is false. From my Greek schooling and studies since, I see their version is false.
Did you want to look at this together?
Much love!
You must know in the "war of the scholars" we all have reams and reams of ammunition, right? This is about the lack of an article, is that right?Have you ever read what Catholic priest and highly acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., wrote RE: John 1:1?
Keep in mind, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest...and highly acclaimed as a scholar; yet he wrote regarding John 1:1 in his 'Dictionary of the Bible'...."Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (1965, NY), p. 317.
I’d say he was honest.
Which rendering agrees with the context?
I think you know that answer.
A is Biblical answers, B is JW answers?A or B.