Originally posted by RJHindswhy do your translators also ignore the Greek construct in John 1:1, more religious bias?
I did not say the Greek term "pases" means "over". I said it means "all".
The addition of "of" or "over" was due to translators discretion to conform
to English, based on what the translators believed it said. Neither "of"
are "over" is actually in the Greek text in relation to "pases", meaning "all".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe other translators did not put "of" in parenthesis to indicate to their readers
'over' was interpolated and was used to make it appear that Christ is distinct from the creation rather than part of it. It cannot be derived from the Greek text, it ignores grammatical construct and is simply an interpolation used to display a religious bias. This is a fact. The translators have no basis for doing so. You cannot derive over from ...[text shortened]... e actual rendering of the Greek text because of their religious bais, i would say prejudice.
that it was an interpolation and you were okay with that. I am not an expert
on Greek to English, but I do not understand how "of" is derived from "pases"
either. Other text supports the fact that "over all" is more accurate. I don't
think you should ignore other text in support of your religious bias or maybe
your prejudice.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe it is religious bias from the Watchtower Society, instead.
why do your translators also ignore the Greek construct in John 1:1, more religious bias?
Have you ever prayed to God the Father in the name of Yahshua or Jesus?
P.S. You might benefit from reading this sermon:
http://executableoutlines.com/col/col_04.htm
Don't forget Yahshua (Jesus) referred to himself as the First and the last,
and also the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega.
Originally posted by RJHindsit is because 'pases' is in the genetive, genitive means that in English we use 'of'. 'Over all', is not more accurate, its not even in the Greek text, nor can it be derived from the text, not on a lexical basis nor a grammatical basis, that is the point, its simply an interpolation because of trinitarian religious bias. To state that its more accurate without even knowing why is just a sad reflection of the state of teaching within the churches of Christendom. I dont support any bias in this instance, i am simply stating what is written or can be derived from the Greek text, you dont like it because it has clearly exposed the bias of your translators. That is fine, but it would be easier for you to simply have admitted it in the first instance.
The other translators did not put "of" in parenthesis to indicate to their readers
that it was an interpolation and you were okay with that. I am not an expert
on Greek to English, but I do not understand how "of" is derived from "pases"
either. Other text supports the fact that "over all" is more accurate. I don't
think you should ignore other text in support of your religious bias or maybe
your prejudice.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn page 9 of this thread G75 quoted the following from the Holy Bible:
it is because 'pases' is in the genetive, genitive means that in English we use 'of'. 'Over all', is not more accurate, its not even in the Greek text, nor can it be derived from the text, not on a lexical basis nor a grammatical basis, that is the point, its simply an interpolation because of trinitarian religious bias. To state that its more accu ...[text shortened]... is fine, but it would be easier for you to simply have admitted it in the first instance.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Notice is says "all things were created by him", "he is before all things", and
"who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
In context, this is talking about the "preeminence" of Christ it says. This
means He has "preeminence over all creation." It would not make sense to
say He has "preeminence of all creation." So "firstborn over all creation"
fits the context and "firstborn of all creation" does not. As Creator of all
things, He could not be a created being. Even by giving up his Glory that
He had with the Father in the beginning by becoming flesh He was born
or begotten, but not created as a man.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI am interested in the Greek text, not your opinions, however well meaning. If i
Maybe it is religious bias from the Watchtower Society, instead.
Have you ever prayed to God the Father in the name of Yahshua or Jesus?
P.S. You might benefit from reading this sermon:
http://executableoutlines.com/col/col_04.htm
Don't forget Yahshua (Jesus) referred to himself as the First and the last,
and also the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega.
need your advice, ill ask for it. Let us discuss John 1:1. It states, in Greek, the
following,
kia o logos, en pros ton theon, kia theos en o logos.
literally, 'and the Word was with the God and god was the word',
Now this is rather interesting, for we note that the translators of the text recognise
the Greek construct, 'o logos', translates as 'the word', because it has the Greek
definite article, 'ton theon', translates as 'God', for despite the fact that it has the
Greek definite article, in English we dont say 'the God', but simply God. Yet the last
'theos', doesn't come with the Greek definite article and is therefore indefinite. When
translating an indefinite term into English we always put, 'an or a' before it.
Why have translators acknowledged the Greek construct in the first part of the
phrase and ignored it in the latter part, making out that theos is definite, and should
read 'God', when in fact its indefinite and should read, 'a god'. The answer,
trinitarian religious bias in the translation of the sacred text.
If John had wanted to make the Word the equivalent of God God, he would have put
a Greek definite article in from of 'theos', so that it read, 'kia o theos en o logos',
but he didn't. So why are the translators of Christendom making out that he did?
Nothing more than religious bias and they are reprehensible for it. I doubt they will
escape punishment for this outrage.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsno it doesn't, ive told you already, i am interested in what the Greek text actually
On page 9 of this thread G75 quoted the following from the Holy Bible:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for h beginning by becoming flesh He was born
or begotten, but not created as a man.
states, not the opinions of unscrupulous translators or trinitarian commentaries which
demonstrate their prejudice. You have not demonstrated on one occasion, why we
should except your assertions on the basis of the Greek text, its simply second hand
opinion, regurgitated and presented without understanding of the actual text. I am
sorry to sound so cruel, but that's what it amounts to. We are interested in direct
experience of God from the text, not the mere opinion of others.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGreek language scholars have studied this verse John 1:1 probably more
I am interested in the Greek text, not your opinions, however well meaning. If i
need your advice, ill ask for it. Let us discuss John 1:1. It states, in Greek, the
following,
kia o logos, en pros ton theon, kia theos en o logos.
literally, 'and the Word was with the God and god was the word',
Now this is rather interesting, for we sible for it. I doubt they will
escape punishment for this outrage.
extensively than any other versse it the Holy Bible. They have concluded
that the only way that one could translate that verse into English in the
manner that the Watchtower Society has done is to take a pagan polytheistic
view. That is, there are many gods. But if there is only one true God, it
can not be done.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you have any comment to make on the actual text itself, that would be fine, I will say
Greek language scholars have studied this verse John 1:1 probably more
extensively than any other versse it the Holy Bible. They have concluded
that the only way that one could translate that verse into English in the
manner that the Watchtower Society has done is to take a pagan polytheistic
view. That is, there are many gods. But if there is only one true God, it
can not be done.
this for the last time, i am uninterested in mere opinion, even less in your prejudices.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is the spirituality forum and is described as debate and general discussion
If you have any comment to make on the actual text itself, that would be fine, I will say
this for the last time, i am uninterested in mere opinion, even less in your prejudices.
of the supernatural, religion, and the life after. Does that not include opinion?
I have listened to your opinions but apparently no one elses opinions is worthy
of your note.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNope you are misunderstanding what i am saying, i am uninterested in opinions on the
This is the spirituality forum and is described as debate and general discussion
of the supernatural, religion, and the life after. Does that not include opinion?
I have listened to your opinions but apparently no one elses opinions is worthy
of your note.
Greek text, i am interested in what the text has to say itself, for clearly, as has been
demonstrated, the two are not synonymous. So if you have any comment which has a
direct bearing to the text, that is fine, otherwise, ill be on my way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you familiar with Colwell's Rule for the use of the article in the Greek
Nope you are misunderstanding what i am saying, i am uninterested in opinions on the
Greek text, i am interested in what the text has to say itself, for clearly, as has been
demonstrated, the two are not synonymous. So if you have any comment which has a
direct bearing to the text, that is fine, otherwise, ill be on my way.
New Testament? It states as follows:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when if follows the verb;
it does not when it precedes the verb."
This could explain why the article is absent.
Originally posted by RJHindsyes i am familiar with it, ill speak on this later for i am being booted from the PC by number one son.
Are you familiar with Colwell's Rule for the use of the article in the Greek
New Testament? It states as follows:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when if follows the verb;
it does not when it precedes the verb."
This could explain why the article is absent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieahhh ok 🙂 No joke I saw these well dressed but bright chartreuse wearing shirts on these young guys last week when I was eating lunch. I was like who are you guys? What Corporation do you work for? One of the guys was like no we're Jehovah Witnesses. I was ok cool man. They were chatting about all kinds of stuff. They actually were very nice we even chatted a bit.
yes it was, you mess with da Gman, you mess with his brother
Manny