Originally posted by daniel58yawn, it also state that Christ and the disciples are to be one just as the father and Christ are one, does that mean that the disciples are also almighty god, no i don't think so, also strange that you are yet unable to find any reference that Christ is Almighty God
"Because I and the Father (God the Father of course), are One".
The November 1, 2008 issue of The Watchtower magazine, currently printing 37.1 million copies per issue in 169 different languages, has a significant article that mentions the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1.
The title of the article is: Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1
Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
Auw neunoute pe pshaje
A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:
In the beginning existed the word
And the word existed in the presence of the god
And a god was the word
Unlike the contemporaneous versions in Syriac and Latin, the Sahidic Coptic language has both the definite and indefinite grammatical articles in its syntactical system. The Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article in identifying the God that the Word was with, and they used the Coptic indefinite article in identifying the divinity of the Word. This is a feature in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions.
Dr. James Moffatt (1870-1944) was a notable scholar of Biblical Greek and translator of the 1934 Bible version which bears his name. I've had him on the shelf for some time and recently looked at his translation of John 1:1 and John 1:18.
What interested me is that Moffatt's English translation of the Greek text(s) was quite close to what an accurate English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text would say, the Coptic text itself being based upon ancient Greek texts.
In other words, it appears that Moffatt took a similar message from those Greek texts that the Coptic translators did when they rendered their Greek texts into their own Egyptian Coptic language.
At John 1:1 Moffat renders:
The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
The Sahidic Coptic text, with my 2006 Contemporary Translation:
Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe
In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being.
At John 1:18 Moffatt renders:
Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father's breast.
The Sahidic Coptic text, with my 2006 Contemporary Translation:
pnoute mpelaau nau eroF eneH. pnoute pShre nouwt petSoop Hn kounF mpeFeiwt petmmau pe ntaFSaJe eroF
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.
I was translating the Coptic, Moffatt was translating the Greek, but this similarity is amazing. Perhaps it is simply that both Moffatt and the Coptic translators were concerned with grammatical accuracy in these verses or had the same understanding of their meaning in the context of John's Gospel as a whole.
It is worth noting that, unlike John 1:1, the ancient Greek texts for John 1:18 exist in a number of variants, the notable ones being 1) monogenhs theos; 2) ho monogenhs theos; 3) ho monogenhs huios, i.e., "only [- begotten] god," "the only [- begotten] god," and "the only [- begotten] son."
Translators today usually put their preferred rendering in their main text and others in their footnotes. However, it appears that the Coptic translators did not footnote the variants, but conflated them. Perhaps they believed there was equal weight for both the "son" and the "god" readings found variously in manuscripts or papyri like the Vatican 1209, p66, p75 ("god" and Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc. ("son".
It is less likely that they postulated "son" from monogenhs alone, since this Greek term appears in the New Testament along with huios, which would give a redundant reading, something like "only-son son." At any rate, what is known for sure is that both the "son" and the "god" readings are attested in the ancient Greek manuscripts, and those manuscripts or their predecessors were likely available to the 2nd/3rd century Sahidic Coptic translators.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI already told you one "Before Abraham was I AM. Now lets look at this, GOd said to Moses in the bush when he asked Who it was that send him He replied "I AM...". So of course they knew what He was talking about, which is why they took up rocks to throw and Him and kill Him, because that was the punishment for claiming you were God, now if He had just been born BEFORE Abraham then that claim would make no sense and He wouldn't have risked His life, IF He had been JUST born before Abraham then 1. He would've been really old, 2. It makes no sense what do you think He came down here to do?
yawn, it also state that Christ and the disciples are to be one just as the father and Christ are one, does that mean that the disciples are also almighty god, no i don't think so, also strange that you are yet unable to find any reference that Christ is Almighty God
Originally posted by daniel58heard it a zillion times, no reference to Christ as God almighty, no not one. what is interesting is that it is Christs enemies that are saying that he is making himself equal to God, not Christ, how do we know this,
I already told you one "Before Abraham was I AM. Now lets look at this, GOd said to Moses in the bush when he asked Who it was that send him He replied "I AM...". So of course they knew what He was talking about, which is why they took up rocks to throw and Him and kill Him, because that was the punishment for claiming you were God, now if He had just be e would've been really old, 2. It makes no sense what do you think He came down here to do?
(Philippians 2:5-6) . . .Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
it is very simple, Gods name is Jehovah, Jesus Christ is the son, you are on to a hiding to nothing with that nonsense with reference to I AM Daniel. its not even an accurate depiction of the Jewish verb.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is referring to His human nature, "In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD..."
heard it a zillion times, no reference to Christ as God almighty, no not one. what is interesting is that it is Christs enemies that are saying that he is making himself equal to God, not Christ, how do we know this,
(Philippians 2:5-6) . . .Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in Gods for ...[text shortened]... t nonsense with reference to I AM Daniel. its not even an accurate depiction of the Jewish verb.
Originally posted by daniel58i do not accept that as an accurate translation, there is no compelling reason nor biblical authority for translating the greek text as and the Word was GOD, no compelling reason, infcat i think it is a gross misrepresentation of the text, for there is no reference in scripture as you have adequately shown, where Christ is deemed to be equal to God, yet somehow someone somewhere deemed that this text should be translated as if he were, i don't think so.
That is referring to His human nature, "In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD..."
what is about these translations that you do not understand
The Logos [Word] was divine.” A New Translation of the Bible
“The Word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version
The Word was with God and shared his nature.” The Translator’s New Testament
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, page 108, translated by Robert W. Funk.
In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word - shaidic coptic text
The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine - James Moffat
In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being - contemporary English translation
In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (peace be upon it)
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe sahidic coptic texts have not been proven to be more reliable than the greek; in fact they are said to have been copied from the greek. That would mean there is a good chance of an error in translation. Couple that with the dispute over the translation, and well....your argument doesn't hold up.
recommended i dont think so, why do you feel the need to recommend it, mmm, i wonder could this be the reason
[b]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 examp ...[text shortened]... But definitely not, "the Word was God."[/b][/b]
Titus 2:13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
2Peter !:1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
In both cases the rules of Greek grammer refer to the same person since the adjective “our” precedes two
nouns connected by a conjunction.
Isaiah 43:
10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.
There was no other God before or after God, no God, not even a demi-god. there is no other savior apart from God. Logic would dictate that Jesus is God
Originally posted by duecermy argument doesn't hold up, i don't believe the extent you people will go to in order to perpetuate your myth. if they are not more reliable, then they are equally as reliable as the Greek text on which many translations are based, therefore your argument is a piece of nonsense, what is more, they are older, thus more accurately reflecting the thought of the time and they are more complete than anything else that we possess.
the sahidic coptic texts have not been proven to be more reliable than the greek; in fact they are said to have been copied from the greek. That would mean there is a good chance of an error in translation. Couple that with the dispute over the translation, and well....your argument doesn't hold up.
There is no dispute in the translation, this FACT you cannot escape, for the Coptic translators, in the second century C.E. included both the indefinite article and the definite article in their translation and made a distinction between God the Almighty and the Word (Christ the son), why you cannot accept that FACT i do not know, but it exists and is there for all lovers of truth to see. it is not surprising that advocates of the trinity (which was adopted much later by the apostate church), should resist this, not surprising at all.