“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
“the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Schonfield
“the Logos was divine" Moffat
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
“and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
“and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
“and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
“and the Word was a god.” New World Translation .
“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
According to these translations the word was not Almighty God himself, but shares divine characteristics, the term god, in this instance simply means ,'a mighty one', as in the case of a mighty spiritual being, which is what Christ evidently was, prior to his coming in the form of a man. also the statement itself is self evident, if someone is with another, they cannot be the same person, can they, therefore if the word is with God, logically he cannot be and be with him at the same time. Also the context itself states that Christ cannot be God, for it clearly says in verse eighteen, that no man has seen god at anytime, yet many perosns evidently beheld the personage of Christ, therefore Jaywill, expect a treatise nailed to the front door of your church this coming Sunday!
hopefully you don't have glass door! but if you do, i am prepared to handcuff myself to them, in an effort to save you from the lake of fire!
Originally posted by jaywillDid the disciples or the apostles know all that ?
[b]================================
You think Christ would have a clue what Jaywill talking about ?
Jaywill is trying to tell Christ that He is GOD ? Christ would be shocked.
Christ will say
"... but Jay, I said I am the SON.
...GOD is the father .. understand ?"
=======================================
I told Robbie. And now I te ...[text shortened]... en yet have the blessedness of believing. And Jesus is also "my Lord AND MY GOD."[/b]
Originally posted by Rajk999no, i am afraid they did not, for there is no mention of the idea in either the teachings of the Christ, nor the teachings of Paul. Why? because it entered into Christianity at a much later date, around the fourth century.
Did the disciples or the apostles know all that ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefunny, I can't find those translations on Bible gateway...or any other non denominational site. where should I look?
“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
“the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Schonfield
“the Logos was divine" Moffat
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, inte o, i am prepared to handcuff myself to them, in an effort to save you from the lake of fire!
Edit: a few google references make mention of watchtower publications.
Originally posted by dueceroh what a crying shame, for one so erudite, you would think that you could just rhyme them off the top of your head, you don't have a personal library? well try the local one, if not, the internet is a vast resource, try there, but i am not doing your research for you. now if you care to comment on the actual content of the post, what is actually there, rather than what is not, then we may have something to talk about, otherwise, well, you know, Jesus on toast, that's whats funny about it. as for whether they are watchtower publications is also neither here nor there, for as far as i am aware, they have one bible translation as jaywill mentioned, the new world, but as for the others, well who knows, nor does it matter.
funny, I can't find those translations on Bible gateway...or any other non denominational site. where should I look?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesee edit above.
oh what a crying shame, for one so erudite, you would think that you could just rhyme them off the top of your head, you don't have a personal library? well try the local one, if not, the internet is a vast resource, try there, but i am not doing your research for you. now if you care to comment on the actual content of the post, what is actually the ...[text shortened]... mething to talk about, otherwise, well, you know, Jesus on toast, that's whats funny about it.
JW's are a heretical sect and not worthy of my time to rebut their arguments.
Originally posted by dueceractually you can believe what you want, this is actually a discussion about the trinity, i don't know if you have noticed, therefore if you have anything to say about it, then fine, if you have not, then what is there to discuss with you, whether the references come form the watchtower society, greek philisophy, the sahidic coptic text, ancient history as in the case of Micheal servetus, arius, or wherever, they all amount to the same thing, trinity is pants, so if you have anything to see, then be my guest, if not, then cya!
see edit above.
JW's are a heretical sect and not worthy of my time to rebut their arguments.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif the references come from the watchtower society then it is a dishonest argument, as those are dishonest translations.
actually you can believe what you want, this is actually a discussion about the trinity, i don't know if you have noticed, therefore if you have anything to say about it, then fine, if you have not, then what is there to discuss with you, whether the references come form the watchtower society, greek philisophy, the sahidic coptic text, ancient histo ...[text shortened]... me thing, trinity is pants, so if you have anything to see, then be my guest, if not, then cya!
Originally posted by duecerok, so now you are an expert on translation, well ok, i can personally vouch for the moffat translation, for i have it in my library, also i can vouch for the emphatic diaglott by the christidelphian, james wilson which i have in my library, , there also may be many other translations mentioned that i personally vouch for, can you? no well, then what are you talking about? its your erudite word against theirs, and considering your past record, well you know how it is.
if the references come from the watchtower society then it is a dishonest argument, as those are dishonest translations.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou vouch for Moffat? where did you earn your masters in greek bible? I found a number of sites claiming moffats translation as satanic.LMAO...you vouching...yer funny...
ok, so now you are an expert on translation, well ok, i can personally vouch for the moffat translation, for i have it in my library, also i can vouch for the emphatic diaglott by the christidelphian, james wilson which i have in my library, , there also may be many other translations mentioned that i personally vouch for, can you? no well, then what ...[text shortened]... its your erudite word against theirs, and considering your past record, well you know how it is.
Originally posted by dueceryes hardly surprising is it, for you have also seen a vision of jesus on toast, but i have two beautiful volumes by the learned moffat, but you being an expert, you can obviously discredit his translation, cant you, or was he also dishonest when committing his translation to paper, you know, was he playing death metal and using a quill given to him by Satan himself, did he not pen it in blood as well, i mean where will your fantasies end?
you vouch for Moffat? where did you earn your masters in greek bible? I found a number of sites claiming moffats translation as satanic.***...you vouching...yer funny...
actually if you examine the sahidic coptic text, you will also be able to verify his translation, why must we continually have to apologize for ignorance, i dunno, its a constant battle against nothingness and triviality.
Not knowing these English translations that well, (except for Moffat which I have read some), Just based on these quotations of part of John 1:1 I would conclude:
==================================
“The Logos [Word] was divine, A New Translation of the Bible
======================================
Must be a paraphrase. For theo is god/ God and not "divine".
================================
“The Word was a god.”, The New Testament in an Improved Version
================================
This may be better than a paraphrase. However, in my Greek class Dr. Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, author of "The Language of the New Testament, Scribner's Sons, NY, and at the time was a professor of Greek and Hebrew at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge Massachusetts, told us that "TheWord was a god" is by far the less likely litural translation of the Greek in John 1:1.
The technical reasons which he went over I do not remember. But he had them. And he was an expert on NT Greek.
All your versions which read "divine" rather than god or God, I would consider as loose paraphrases.
Your versions which read "a god" I would consider inferior Greek translations.
Now theologically, if God is divine, simply saying that the Word was divine is not necessarily to teach that the Word is not God. But you only refered to limited portions of these translations.
=============================
“The Word was with God and shared his nature.” The Translator’s New Testament
============================
I regard definitely a loose paraphrase like "The Good News for Modern Man" or "JB Phillips" or "The Living Bible". That is not to say that they cannot be useful. It is to say that one should not consult them to get straight forward Greek translation to English.
===============================
“the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Schonfield
“the Logos was divine" Moffat
==============================
Paraphrases. Loose supposedly "English friendly" editions. Often these reflect theological positions of the editors.
===========================
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
================================
That is closer to a translation. Except that the "a" I suspect is incorrect or grammatically unlikely.
=================================
“and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
“and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
“and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
=====================================
Loose paraphrases and not straight translations.
=======================
“and the Word was a god.” New World Translation .
“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
==============================
According to the above mentioned professor of Greek and author of Introduction to NT Greek translation "The Language of the New Testament "a god" or "a God" is a bad translation.
==============================
“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
=====================================
Paraphrase.
========================================
According to these translations the word was not Almighty God himself, but shares divine characteristics, the term god, in this instance simply means ,'a mighty one', as in the case of a mighty spiritual being,
=================================
You only quoted portions of the whole passage. Regardless, this conclusion only goes to prove that you prefer a polytheistic interpretation of John 1:1.
A god, a divine being, a godlike being,etc. etc. all indicate or come very close to a polytheistic belief. - Besides Almighty God there is another lesser divine being who is our Savior.
===========================
which is what Christ evidently was, prior to his coming in the form of a man. also the statement itself is self evident, if someone is with another, they cannot be the same person, can they, therefore if the word is with God, logically he cannot be and be with him at the same time.
====================================
God can be that way. That is why Isaiah said His first name was Wonderful. Anything that is wonderful is full of wonder.
The same word is used elsewhere in Scripture to signify "too high" knowledge to which one cannot attain. Beyond ones powers. Beyond the limitation of the finite mind.
"Is anything TOO wonderful for Jehovah?"
" Oh knowledge too WONDERFUL for me! It is high; I cannot attain to it" (Psalm 139:6)
The same word Wonderful [peleh], is used to discribe the child born who is called "Mighty God" and the "son ... given" who is called "Eternal Father".
It is high knowledge. It is wonderful and we cannot attain to it. But He is nonetheless "unto us" for our salvation and enjoyment.
==============================
Also the context itself states that Christ cannot be God, for it clearly says in verse eighteen, that no man has seen god at anytime, yet many perosns evidently beheld the personage of Christ,
================================
You are not paying attention to what the Apostle John wrote:
"No one has ever seen God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." (John 1:18)
Jesus the man is the declaration and manifestation of God. Jesus is the explanation of God. He is the Word which was God.
John boldly writes that all of the appearings of God that took place in the Old Testament do not ultimately count. The man Jesus is the declaration of God. To see Him is to see God manifested and explained.
The Word of life which was with the Father was touched, seen, handled by the apostles (1 John 1). Then this One "became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) to impart God as life into man.
I have to go on an errand.
Originally posted by jaywillwell said, I guess I am just too lazy to type that much😞
Not knowing these English translations that well, (except for Moffat which I have read some), Just based on these quotations of part of [b]John 1:1 I would conclude:
==================================
“The Logos [Word] was divine, A New Translation of the Bible
======================================
Must be a paraphrase. For [ ...[text shortened]... d as life into man.
I have to go on an errand.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillok, you guys have asked to be nuked, let us refer ourselves to the sahidic coptic text, second century, 200 years before the god dishonoring doctrine of the trinity found its way into Christian dogma.
Not knowing these English translations that well, (except for Moffat which I have read some), Just based on these quotations of part of [b]John 1:1 I would conclude:
==================================
“The Logos [Word] was divine, A New Translation of the Bible
======================================
Must be a paraphrase. For [ ...[text shortened]... d as life into man.
I have to go on an errand.[/b]
dig this
4- That all the primarily Trinitarian-based objections to translating ou.noute as "a god" at Coptic John 1:1c amount to little more than presupposition or special pleading. Though such faulty, superficial objections have been cut and pasted frequently on the Internet, they are poorly researched and often misleading. The Coptic text of John 1:1c was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to "read back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1c, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god."
therefore your trinitarian assertions that the definite article did not exist in Greek is utterly refuted, for the Egyptians, who from a much earlier time, understood it to mean, a god and not god almighty, thus the sahidic coptic text, much much closer to to the time of the apostles reflects true christian thought and understanding, not the pre christian greek mythology that jaywill would have us adopt.
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html