"It" is singular. But we all know that it is a HE ...not an IT.
The word (logos or YHVH) was God. And He became flesh and dwelt among us.
The Problem With The Trinity
- Thread starter JesusIsFaithful
- 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!
"It" is singular. But we all know that it is a HE ...not an IT.
The word (logos or YHVH) was God. And He became flesh and dwelt among us.
I did not translate those Bibles either.
People will use the Bible itself to describe a lie or to describe a the truth depending on their beliefs and purposes. Many people without a doubt have been in error in such usage, but I would never presume to say that everyone who opposed my own beliefs with their arguments were only trying to take me down with their uncovered "loopholes". Likely many of them were very sincere in errors even as I at times have probably been sincere in my errors.
Where I really always purpose to be is "in His name". Can a person honestly be "in His name" when he is in error?
So would you say that before there was a King James Version or any of our more English modern versions, those who used the Tyndale and/or the Geneva Bibles had no access to a correct written English version of the what 'thus saith the Lord'? Those who read only English had no scriptures they could trust? For them was there no Word of God? This does raise a question about what the Word of God is, does it not? I won't go into what I believe on this last point, but some here may already know.
Then again since Jesus is the "Word of God" should I call my Bible a "he or a "him", a "she" or a "her", or an "it"? In Spanish it would be a "she" [la, ella] and German it would be called "she" [die, sie]. Jesus is not female, but male, so why don't we call our Bibles, "he"? You have said that the Logos is God. What gender is God? Is this a foolish question? Is the Bible foolishness? Which Bible is the correct one? Maybe we trash all of the English ones and learn to read the Hebrew and Greek?
Then again since we want to call God him or he, what do we do with this verse?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28
Nit picking on such grammatical details to prove what we know proves what? Don't we live for God by faith rather than by knowledge? What is faith?
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
Is our vision determined by assigning God a gender or calling the Bible an "it" rather than a "he"? Or is it calling Jesus an "it" rather than a "he"? Foolishness! Isn't it only God who gives any increase?
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Yes, "it" is singular. It refers to the "logos". "Logos" was the Greek word used for the Hebrew "dabar" as in Jeremiah 1:4-5;
Jer 1:4 Then the word [Hebrew dabar; Greek logos] of YHWH came unto me, saying,
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Did a single "word" come to Jeremiah or did many words come to him that were categorized as a singular word? Verse 5 shows that many words came to Jeremiah. "Logos" is a singular noun that can refer to more than one word. Logos, as used in John 1:1, refers to the Father's thoughts, plans, spoken words all summed up in the pronoun "it" in verse 3.
Last edited:
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Loophole? Then for almost two hundred years prior to the KJV, all Christians were deceived by that "loophole". Hardly. Now that the KJV has CHANGED "it" to "him" and all ensuing versions follow their error, the false teaching of the "divinity of Jesus" has taken firm root. They have made a man "God" and relegated the only true God, Yeshua's Father YHWH, to some obscure position within a pagan Godhead just like other pagan religions have. Sumeria, Babylon, Greece, Egypt, India, Phoenicia, Germans, etc., all had their triune gods.
YHVH is a word (davar).
YHVH is THE word (Davar).
And the Word (YHVH) was God...and was made flesh and dwelt among us.
....not...
The coming of Jesus was prophesied many years before His coming. He is "God with us".
Just because some translator got it wrong in an English translation.....doesn't mean that all mankind remains in error. Now if a person wants to continue in error..then that is their choice.
A translator also forgot the "not" in....Thou shalt NOT commit adultery. It was written...Thou shalt commit adultery.
Humans make mistakes.
Just like those who deny the divinity of Jesus.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
YHWH is NOT a dabar. He has a dabar. So now the Son is no longer the logos? Now its the Father? All I used to hear from Christians is "Jesus is the Word". Now I am hearing, "YHVH is THE word". It is amazing how error continues to morph into new error.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
As soon as the mistake found in the "Wicked Bible" was noticed, almost all were destroyed. "It" was NOT a mistake. For almost 200 years all Christians believed "it" was the correct translation. When it was changed, ignorant Christians went along with it. The same thing happened to our Saviour's name. For hundred's of years his names was written as "Iesus" until printers invented the letter "J" and replaced the letter "I" with "J". That not only turned the spelling from "Iesus" to "Jesus", but it also changed the sound if his name from "Yaysus" to "Geesus". Did Christians care? No. They just blindly allowed his name to be changed. Where is the love for truth? Not that "Iesus" was literal truth, but it was "truth" to English speaking Christians and they failed to defend it. I would not be one bit surprised if "Jesus" was changed to something else in our future. Nor would I be one bit surprised if the trinity doctrine continues to morph as it has over the years. As long as Christians cannot understand it or express it, it will continue to morph until it sounds more feasible to them.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
i guess ppl being ppl they just are not going to quit until they have something personified that they feel comfortable bowing down to?
Was Jesus an "it" or a "He"? The answer: Jesus was a Man! He was not an object; He was a Person...
As someone previously posted, the Bibles you speak of had something in their notes that declared that Christ Jesus was God...this in direct context of the mistranslation of the Word being an "it".
Again I would point out that the Word was God; and therefore if the Word was an "it" then God is an "it". You have just made God into an impersonal force; and therefore your God is more like the God of Buddhism than of Christianity.
Those who used Bibles before the kjv did indeed have the word of the Lord; but with the evidence that is now presented I do not believe that they had the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God; unless you count the notes that they placed in their Bibles to also be inspired so that the sound doctrine of the Personhood of the Word is preserved.
The Bible itself might be identified as an "it" (word with a small "w"); but the Word (the Logos) is Jesus Christ; and He was definitely a "He".
Of course we know that in the beginning God created man in His image and created them male and female. So the image of God might be considered to be both. However, Jesus Christ was not female but male when He walked the earth; as He could not be both but had to be one or the other. I do believe that He had female characteristics; such as compassion: but He was primarily male. That is just the way it is; and not in any way an attack on the women's movement of our day.
So you would say that all Christians for the 400 years since the kjv was implemented have been deceived; and therefore you have the same problem in your end of the field that you have presented to us; only on your end it is for a longer period of time that you say the deception has lasted.
Last edited:
Because Jesus is YHVH. It is certainly not a morphing of doctrine at all; but a revealing more to you of what we believe as Christians.
The NT was written in Greek. Those who wrote it used the Greek forms of the names. So are you going to throw out the whole NT because of that? Silliness. But then your whole platform is based on things like this.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Those who wrote it attempted to transliterate our Saviour's name from Hebrew into Greek, but failed because Greek does not have an "sh" sound and they add the terminal "us" to names. This resulted in "Iesous" (yay-soo-us) which was an attempt at transliterating "Yeshua" (yay-shoo-a). It was then erroneously transliterated into Latin as "Iesus" and English as "Iesus" and English again as "Jesus". Anyone who truly loves Yeshua and loves truth will restore his true name to their lips.
He was as you say a man, a person, but what is the Word of God? Is that not the Living Jesus rather than the dead carcass hanging on the cross before the Resurrection? Even so... with a paper Bible unread by a person without the quickening Spirit.
I have quite a few paper Bibles, but not a single copy of those two. I took the quotes from an online Bible. But, are they not also dead without the inspiration in me or you or someone by the Holy Spirit? What is a mistranslation to the Holy Spirit? When I was still working for a living I translated documents regularly for Uncle Sam and I did make mistakes as men do. God doesn't make mistakes. Men do.
No, a person only makes God into Nehushtan because of where he is or is not. To me God is not an impersonal force, but to presume that he fits neatly into our perceptions of male and female is to limit Him as we are limited. That is putting God in a box and He does not fit. God is greater than the he, the she or the it. But, to speak about Him in order to communicate we are limited by the language we speak and our understanding of it.
I would not even say that. I would say rather that God's message to men as interpreted by Jesus is as an unbroken scarlet thread to the present day. The truth was always available to anyone who really hungered and thirsted after righteousness [ Matt 5:6 ]. That was the unbroken thread and by the Holy Spirit any and all of it could always be found by anyone.
The Bible is simply a book designated by the pronouns appropriate to the language in which is it written. For German or Spanish it would be feminine, while for English it would be neither of those. What do we call a dead carcass of a man?
[Note: just to identify the confusion inherent in man's languages, a young unmarried physical female in German is NOT identified by the feminine gender in grammar. Such a young girl is grammatically neuter until she marries or is a physical adult at which time she is grammatically switched from neuter to feminine.]
He is a he because he is the bridegroom, not because he was a male in his flesh during those 33½ years spent on planet Earth 2000 years ago. What are we as the bride of Christ? Are we not female even though in the flesh we may be male or female?
Consider the Body of Christ. Who is the Head of the Church or of the Body, but Jesus? But are there not spiritual roles as well as physical roles? In the spiritual the Head is the Bridegroom which is a male role [but not necessarily a physical male?] which could be either a physical male or female manifesting the Word of God by preaching or teaching or testifying or singing or etc. Those who listen or hear are the Bride, a female role, which certainly consists of physical males as well as females. Is this confusing to God?
And from this do we not have what has been called a Christian nation or on the contrary as some have said, "it is not any more"? For what of Jesus do we see in today's society in the United States? More than 80% Christian? Not from what I have seen in the United States compared to what I have understood Jesus to be according to the scriptures.
The very word, Christian, no longer really means Christ-like if it ever did... at least not to most people.
So again, where is the confusion? Is it certainly NOT in God.
Jesus in His humanity is a Man and not a woman. Therefore He is a "He" and not an "It" or a "She." Yes He is a He because He was a male in His flesh during those 33 1/2 years spent on the planet and also in His resurrected body.
And the bride of Christ consists of those who are physically both male and female. But of course I agree that in His designation as Bridegroom, Jesus takes on the classification of male (which He is; also in the flesh) and we as the bride of Christ take on the classification of female (which we may or may not be; in the flesh).
Which indicates that whether you are perceiving Jesus as being a Man in the flesh or as Bridegroom in the Spirit; either way He is classified as male; and therefore He is a "He" and not an "It" or a "She.".
But again, I don't see what bearing any of this has on the conversation at hand. Because it is clear that whether Jesus is male or female, He is not an "it." He is a Person, not an object; to bring things back to the original subject; and therefore He is God before He became a Man. And that not a God who is an impersonal force but a Person that desires a relationship with you and me.
So, are you saying that those who pronounced Jesus' name according to the Greek or English languages were not calling on His name? In saying this you are excluding from salvation perhaps billions of Christians who throughout church history have pronounced the name of Jesus according to the Greek and English languages. I believe that this is something that you think is bad; at least according to something recent that you posted Today at 5:06 AM#465 (the condemning of people because they didn't have the right information; such as how you believe that the people who read pre-kjv versions should not be condemned over those translations in what they said in John 1:1-3 about the word being an "it" and not a "He". The same principle applies to those who use the name of Jesus as it is pronounced in Greek or English: we are not condemned over that pronunciation; and in the very fact of the matter calling on the name of the Lord as it is pronounced in our language does indeed have the power to save; as many Christians who have called on the name of "Jesus Christ" can testify that doing so did indeed save them).
I think that I have proven my point as much as it can be in man's language alone. Similarly I guess for you. Our details on the finer points are meaningless if we are not on His side. Only He is able to ponder what is in every heart.
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2
Similar threads
- Locked
