How is it that you cannot see?

[marks]

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

Is this something that for some reason you cannot see?

Once again . . . I did not edit my list. Well, that's not entirely true. I removed the "King James w/ Apocrapha" because it was a repeat of the King James, no need to duplicate. And I removed the Greek version, since that's what we're discussing.

You seem to have this idea that I constructed this list out of cherry picked translations. Look at the link I posted, it's the same list I copied to this thread.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

It's not incumbent on me to account for someone's decision to translate something.

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.

It seems to me that the vast majority of translations don't agree, and how do you account for that?

Translator bias.

I guess you have a lot more accounting for to do, yes?

Much love!

No more or less than anyone else.

 

[marks]

Historically, translations prepared and published by trinitarians prior to 1611

Show them to me.

And why did translators translate literally in so many other translations? Why?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Translator bias.

Handy! Accuse them of Intellectual Dishonesty? That goes around a lot!

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Is this something that for some reason you cannot see?

Once again . . . I did not edit my list. Well, that's not entirely true. I removed the "King James w/ Apocrapha" because it was a repeat of the King James, no need to duplicate. And I removed the Greek version, since that's what we're discussing.

You seem to have this idea that I constructed this list out of cherry picked translations. Look at the link I posted, it's the same list I copied to this thread.

Much love!

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.

 

[Matthias]

Show them to me.

I will. Have you not seen them before?

And why did translators translate literally in so many other translations? Why?

Much love!

Translator bias is real.

 

[Matthias]

Handy! Accuse them of Intellectual Dishonesty? That goes around a lot!

Much love!

I haven’t accused anyone of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[marks]

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.

I don't have the same issue that you do. The Bible overwhelmingly shows Jesus to be the Creator, no matter how you translate the masculine pronouns in John 1. And by your own words, you acknowledge that these translators believed differently then you do about Jesus, the Son of God. They believed He is the Creator God, to the best of my understanding, why don't you?

You agree with their translation, why don't you agree with their conclusions?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

What John 1 recognizes as the word-- Genesis 1 describes as the light.

That's an interesting take that I never heard before. How did you reach that conclusion? I always considered the word to be literal but the light to be figuative.

 

[marks]

I will. Have you not seen them before?

You've claimed that all the English translations before 1611 translated the masculine pronouns in John 1:1-3 as neuter, I'm interested in you backing up your claim.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

I don't have the same issue that you do. The Bible overwhelmingly shows Jesus to be the Creator, no matter how you translate the masculine pronouns in John 1.

Which is why the Apostles’ creed explicitly identifies the Father as the creator?

And by your own words, you acknowledge that these translators believed differently then you do about Jesus, the Son of God. They believed He is the Creator God, to the best of my understanding, why don't you?

I believe that Jesus’ God, not Jesus, is the creator.

You agree with their translation, why don't you agree with their conclusions?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I haven’t accused anyone of intellectual dishonesty.

Saying someone translated according to their bias is accusing them of being intellectually dishonest.

"I could translate according to my best understanding of this word/sentence/paragraph, or I could rework it to what I think it should be."

Is that what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

You've claimed that all the English translations before 1611 translated the masculine pronouns in John 1:1-3 as neuter, I'm interested in you backing up your claim.

Much love!

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?

 

[marks]

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?

I've seen a lot of things, and I don't know if I've seen every English translation from before 1611. I'm looking for you to support your assertion. You've made what seems to me a broad claim, and I'm wondering if it's true.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I believe that Jesus’ God, not Jesus, is the creator.

And the translators whom you support their understanding of the Scriptures believed that Jesus is in fact God Himself, YHWH, who created all that was created. You yourself have said they were all trinitarian, and you yourself defend their understanding of the Bible. So why do you reject their conclusions, and reject the deity of Jesus Christ?

If they knew the meaning of the Scriptures . . . well, did they? Or didn't they?

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Saying someone translated according to their bias is accusing them of being intellectually dishonest.

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 could translate according to my best understanding of this word/sentence/paragraph, or I could rework it to what I think it should be."

Is that what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

Much love!

I mean that everyone approaches scripture with an understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty.

I referred you to the translators of the Geneva Bible. You haven’t called them intellectually dishonest, but you have acknowledged that their understanding of what John wrote is different from the understanding that you and the translators you’ve quoted have.

 

[Matthias]

I've seen a lot of things, and I don't know if I've seen every English translation from before 1611. I'm looking for you to support your assertion. You've made what seems to me a broad claim, and I'm wondering if it's true.

Much love!

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?

 

[Matthias]

And the translators whom you support their understanding of the Scriptures believed that Jesus is in fact God Himself, YHWH, who created all that was created.

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?

You yourself have said they were all trinitarian…

That’s right. Their identities and beliefs are known to all who care to examine the matter.

... and you yourself defend their understanding of the Bible.

No, I‘m pointing out that they don’t all share the same understanding of John’s prologue, which is evident in the translations which they produced and published.

So why do you reject their conclusions.

See above. I accept the translation of some, not the translations of all. As do you.

..l and reject the deity of Jesus Christ?

The deity of Jesus Christ is his God and Father, my God and Father.

If they knew the meaning of the Scriptures . . . well, did they? Or didn't they?

Much love!

See the Geneva Bible translation of John’s prologue. Did they understand the meaning of those passages of scripture? I believe they did and translated accordingly.

You disagree with their translation. Do you then think that they didn’t understand the meaning?

 

[Wrangler]

Where the Geneva puts "IT", as though these were neuter gendered words, the actual are masculine gender, "He".

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?

 

[Matthias]

I've seen a lot of things, and I don't know if I've seen every English translation from before 1611.

Let’s start with the Tyndale Bible. Have you seen it before?

Tyndale Bible 1534 Textus Receptus Bibles

Tyndale Bible 1534

textusreceptusbibles.com

The link will take you directly to John 1.