Originally posted by joe beyserthat is awesome, i will check them out, and thanks.
I have been giving another one of your questions a lot of thought. To answer it would require pages of typing so the best I can do is make a suggestion. Watch the movie The Last Of The Dogmen and compare it to the movie Skins. This will answer a lot of your questions much better than I could. Skins is an accurate view of indian life today as compared to what they once had as shown in The Last Of The Dogmen. They are good movies to boot.
Hey Joe I'm not very scholarly when it comes to the ancient Greek but your assessment of the New World Translation is correct. This is the only thing I have for you but I'm sure you already know. 99% of Ancient Greek Scholars read John 1:1 differently. These are people who devote their lives to the study of the Greek.
http://www.equip.org/articles/a-grossly-misleading-translation-the-new-world-translation-
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75Halloween itself isn’t bad. What you DO on Halloween can be bad if it takes you away from God. This is all those scriptures say. Don’t let traditions take you away from God. Who cares what people did years ago. Most people today view Halloween as a good activity for the youth. There is nothing wrong with that.
That is your viewpoint..what is God's?
The word tradition is used many times in the Bible as warnings to us. Mark 7:13, Col 2:8, Matt 15:3.
Gal 5:9 says it doesn't take much to defile your worship.
Na 1:2 says God accepts only exclusive devotion from his followers.
2 Cor 6: 14-18, Eph 5:10,11 warns against thing of the darkness.
But again. Th ee this.
Is the fun you let your children have worth the unhappiness you cause to your God?
To further demonstrate, here are some examples.
A. Parents pray to God and Jesus Christ on Halloween and then go out together and the children get candy from neighbors they know. They spend quality time together. This is good in God’s eye.
B. Adults and teens go out and steal, dedicated the night to Satan, and do much worse acts. This is obviously bad and takes you away from God.
There is a big difference between the two. One does not take you away from God and the other does. One does a good act and the other does something bad. That’s the difference.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemy church celebrated pancake Tuesday for the first time last februaury. They were delighted to know the origins, and even more enthusiastic about scarfing the pancakes my daughters cooked up for them🙂
nope, i like pancake Tuesday much better! my father who is a Catholic used to mix up the batter and we would enjoy them pancakes!
Originally posted by duecerPancakes are of Pagan origin.
my church celebrated pancake Tuesday for the first time last februaury. They were delighted to know the origins, and even more enthusiastic about scarfing the pancakes my daughters cooked up for them🙂
Anyone who eats pancakes cannot get salvation.
Originally posted by menace71excellent...rec'd
Hey Joe I'm not very scholarly when it comes to the ancient Greek but your assessment of the New World Translation is correct. This is the only thing I have for you but I'm sure you already know. 99% of Ancient Greek Scholars read John 1:1 differently. These are people who devote their lives to the study of the Greek.
http://www.equip.org/articles/a-grossly-misleading-translation-the-new-world-translation-
Manny
Originally posted by menace71piece of nonsense, there is no, and i repeat no valid reason as to why it should be translated to read as the word was God, as in God Almighty
Hey Joe I'm not very scholarly when it comes to the ancient Greek but your assessment of the New World Translation is correct. This is the only thing I have for you but I'm sure you already know. 99% of Ancient Greek Scholars read John 1:1 differently. These are people who devote their lives to the study of the Greek.
http://www.equip.org/articles/a-grossly-misleading-translation-the-new-world-translation-
Manny
if you can point to one, just one Biblical reference where Christ is alluded to as Almighty God then i for one shall be personally grateful, but as you and i are aware there is no such reference, therefore you shall explain on what authority that you have thought to translate it as God as in the Almighty.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChrist said before Abraham was I AM (meaning He's God of course).
piece of nonsense, there is no, and i repeat no valid reason as to why it should be translated to read as the word was God, as in God Almighty
if you can point to one, just one Biblical reference where Christ is alluded to as Almighty God then i for one shall be personally grateful, but as you and i are aware there is no such reference, therefore ...[text shortened]... shall explain on what authority that you have thought to translate it as God as in the Almighty.
Originally posted by daniel58how does that mean he is God? it means that he existed before Abraham, taking your logic then, every one who states in scripture that they are, is God, fallacious piece of nonsense, where does it state that he is God Almighty, you have yet to produce a reference, try again. Gods name is Jehovah, not Jesus.
Christ said before Abraham was I AM (meaning He's God of course).
Originally posted by duecerrecommended i dont think so, why do you feel the need to recommend it, mmm, i wonder could this be the reason
excellent...rec'd
Erroneous Exegesis
Exegesis refers to interpreting a text by reading into it one's own ideas, or other ideas foreign to the text itself. Some apologists continue in a futile attempt to do that with Coptic John 1:1c.
For example, it is claimed that the indefinite ou.noute of Coptic John 1:1c should be translated as 'the one and only God,' because the indefinite article denotes unity, not 'a god.' As a "proof," 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 are quoted, where ou.noute n.ouwt is usually rendered as "one God."
But that is erroneous exegesis. It is a blatant attempt to read philosophical dogma into Coptic grammar. The Coptic indefinite article ou does not of itself 'denote unity.' It simply means "a" when bound with a common or count Coptic noun like noute, "god." The Coptic text of the New Testament contains hundreds of examples that prove this. (For example, see Coptic Acts 28:6, where the anarthrous Greek theos is rendered by ou.noute in Sahidic (Sahidica) and ou.nouti in the Coptic Bohairic version. Horner and Greek-based English versions including the KJV render this as "a god."
Further, it is not the Coptic indefinite article ou that means "one," but the bound idiom ou______n.ouwt. This idiom literally means "a single, an only," and is used in Coptic to denote "one," adjectivally: "one god," "one man," "one spirit," etc. (For example, see Coptic Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 17)
Therefore, ou.noute n.ouwt simply means "one god." It is the context, not the grammar, of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 that mandates the translation "one God" because the specific and definite reference in those verses is p.eiwt, "the Father," whom the Lord Jesus identifies as p.noute m.me m.mauaa.F , "the true God alone" (John 17:3 Horner), "the only true God."
Neither the grammar nor meaning of Coptic 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Ephesians 4:6 is the same as Coptic John 1:1c, so those verses cannot be used to exegete Coptic John 1:1c. Whereas ou.noute n.ouwt means a single god, i.e, "one god" or "one God" (in context, with reference to the Father), the fact remains that ou.noute means "a god." It does not mean some philosophical unity that calls for translating it as 'the one and only God.'
It would be far more honest to read Coptic John 1:1c for what it says, instead of trying to import foreign concepts into it.
And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely not, "the Word was God."
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"In the beginning GOD crested Heaven and Earth", so you refer to Jesus as Jehovah, and you say he is God, Therefor the person i refer to as Jesus (whom you call Jehovah), must be God.
how does that mean he is God? it means that he existed before Abraham, taking your logic then, every one who states in scripture that they are, is God, fallacious piece of nonsense, where does it state that he is God Almighty, you have yet to produce a reference, try again. Gods name is Jehovah, not Jesus.
Originally posted by daniel58i don't refer to Jesus as Jehovah, what are you talking about?, they are completely different entities, i am still waiting therfore where is Jesus ever termed almighty god, just one reference will do.
"In the beginning GOD crested Heaven and Earth", so you refer to Jesus as Jehovah, and you say he is God, Therefor the person i refer to as Jesus (whom you call Jehovah), must be God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Because I and the Father (God the Father of course), are One".
i don't refer to Jesus as Jehovah, what are you talking about?, they are completely different entities, i am still waiting therfore where is Jesus ever termed almighty god, just one reference will do.
A Contemporary English Translation of Coptic John 1:1-18
1. In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2. This one existed in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him; without him nothing that exists came to be. What came to be 4. through him is life, the life that is the light of mankind. 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overtake it.
6. There came a man who was sent by God, his name is John. 7. This one came to bear witness, to bear witness about the light, so that everyone may actively believe through him. 8. He was not the light, but his purpose was to bear witness about the light.
9. The real light which gives light to everyone was about to come into the world. 10. He was in the world, the world which came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.
10. He came to those who were his own, yet those who were his own did not receive him. 12. But he gave authority to become children of God to those who did receive him, to those actively believing in his name. 13. The origin of these was not flesh and blood, nor human will; they were begotten from God.
14. The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his dignity, the dignity possessed by a Father’s only Son; he was filled with divine loving-kindness and truth. 15. John bore witness about him, calling out and declaring, “This was the one concerning whom I said, ‘He who comes behind me has come to be ahead of me, because he existed prior to me.’” 16. From his fullness we all received life, and divine loving-kindness upon divine loving-kindness. 17. The Law was given through Moses, but the divine loving kindness and the truth came to be though Jesus, the Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God at any time. The divine being, the only Son who is in the bosom of his Father, is the one who has revealed him.
Notes:
Verse 1c. Coptic, auw neunoute pe pSaje, literally, “and the Word was a god.” Alternatively, “and the Word was divine.”
Verse 14, dignity. Or, “glory.”
Verses 14, 16, 17, divine loving-kindness. Or, “unmerited favor.” (Greek, charis)
Verse 18. The Coptic text here (“divine being…only Son&rdquo😉 is apparently a conflation of the early Greek variant readings for this verse: monogenhs theos (Vaticanus; p66, etc.); ho monogenhs theos (Sinaiticus (c); p75, etc.) and ho monogenhs huios (Alexandrinus, etc.)
The Coptic text translated is based on the texts of George W. Horner, and J. Warren Wells (by permission).