the forum may also be interested in other forms of dishonesty that charlatans like deucer and sincere but mislead and irredeemable persons like jaywill would have us believe.
Re-inventing verses Vs. Coptic Conservatism
Some modern translations appear to be so intent on preserving or promoting a particular theology, that they have changed the meanings of the verses, or pressed too far in theologizing the verses. A case in point is John 1:1. Not content even with the translation "the Word was God," at least one translation has "the Word was God Himself." (The New Testament, translated by Charles B. Williams, 1937) There is neither grammatical nor contextual authority for that. Far more in the spirit of what the apostle John actually wrote is a translation of John 1:1 similar to that by William Barclay (Westminster John Knox Press, 1968): "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God."
The beauty and significance of the Sahidic Coptic version is its general literalness and faithfulness to the context and spirit of the underlying Greek text(s). Below, we will consider several other Coptic renderings:
Romans 9:5 After mentioning Christ, does the sescond part of this verse refer to Christ as Almighty God, or does it have a second Being in view? The Coptic has pnoute etHiJn ouon nim petsmamaat Sa nieneH Hamhn. Interestingly, petsmamaat is the relative particle (p.et -) + the qualitative form of the Coptic verb smou (bless, praise), i.e., smamaat which means "be blessed." (Richard Smith's Coptic Dictionary, p. 27) Therefore, it could best be translated as a separate sentence referring, not to Christ, but to his Father: "God, who is over all, (is) the one who is blessed for ever." Whereas the Coptic text of Romans 9:5 has some ambiguity, it appears to be less so than the Greek, and points clearly to two entities -- Christ and God -- not to one God who is also Christ. (Compare the similar readings in the New American Bible and the Revised English Bible, i.e., "...from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme over all, be blessed forever. Amen.
Colossians 1:15. Some modern Bible translators don't like the concept of Christ being part of the creation by God, though that is what the Greek indicates literally. So, in their versions they change "firstborn of" to "supreme over" or "having primacy over" all creation. Colossians 1:15 in Coptic has no such mistranslation. It definitely and literally uses a Coptic term that unmistakably means "first-born," i.e. pSrp mmise, comprising the Coptic words for "first" and "born," or "generated." It customarily means "first born child." (Smith's Dictionary, p. 15) Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Sahidic text correctly reads: "the firstborn of all creation" at Colossians 1:15. And the Coptic text specifically says "of" all creation, not "over" all creation.
What is a "Godhead"? This word at Colossians 2:9 (KJV, etc.) gives the wrong impression of some kind of three-faced god united in one head, as is found in some depictions of the Trinity in medieval church artifacts or paintings. The Sahidic Coptic version has tmntnoute, which simply means "divinity" in Coptic. (i.e., noute, "god," + the abstract prefix t.mnt-).
What about some of the various New Testament terms for Hell? Usually the Greek word hades is translated in the Sahidic Coptic version by the old Egyptian word amnte , meaning literally, "the west" (i.e., the place of sunset darkness; death). The Greek term gehenna is usually transliterated in the Coptic New Testament. The Copts had a 500-year influence of Greek to go by, and Greek was so well understood that some Greek words were naturalized in the text, rather than translated. For tartarus at 2 Peter 2:4 the Coptic version has p.noun, which signifies "the abyss, a deep place." The Bible associates neither conscious life nor torment with "Hell." The parable of the rich man in Hades was just that, a parable. And Gehenna was literally a garbage dump outside Jerusalem where fires were kept burning, to consume totally anything dead that was thrown there, not to torment it.
http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was hoping Jaywill would answer that for himself.
no, 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.
I guess his silence means something. .. 🙂
Originally posted by Rajk999lol, we should be worried for ourselves, not because of any logical, biblical or substantiated refutation of our stance, but because he shall sift through our statement lines for line and we shall be forced to read these long winding statements of his, not that they are in themselves monotonous or anything, they just contain so many points of reference that one is almost willing to give up just by virtue of the sheer volume, and give in and say, ok jaywill, you win, the trinity is not pre Christine, the apostles and Christ clearly taught it, its entirely logical and biblical and not in the least mysterious and i wonder why we never came to this conclusion before.
I was hoping Jaywill would answer that for himself.
I guess his silence means something. .. 🙂
but i really do not think that he can refute the clear and unambiguous statements on the textual significance of the sahidic coptic text, its just too well preserved, too well studied, too close to the apostolic time, more so than any extant and complete text that we possess. in other words, hes toast! for like you say Raj, it entered into christian doctrine at a much later time period.
In this discussion on "Who is Jesus?" there has been a complaint that someone will be "forced" to read long posts. Of course I did the complainer the respect of carefully and patiently reading his longer posts to understand his position.
This post will be short:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty." (Rev. 1:5)
"Behold, I come quickly ... I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ...Yes, I come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (See Revelation 22:13, 20)
The Almighty is "the Alpha and the Omega". And the Alpha and the Omega is the Lord Jesus to Whom John says "Come, Lord Jesus"
How could there be TWO Alphas? How could there be TWO Omegas?
The unique Alpha is only ONE. He is THE Beginning.
Jesus is therefore the Almighty incarnated. And in incarnation He did join the eternal God with the creature man. Man is no doubt a created item. But this man is the Almighty. This man is the Alpha and the Omega.
Those who truly want to know will take the time to read what I wrote here in brief.
Originally posted by jaywillHow much of this was made clear by Christ and how much of this particular doctrine did the disciples and apostles know at the time?
In this discussion on "Who is Jesus?" there has been a complaint that someone will be "forced" to read long posts. Of course I did the complainer the respect of carefully and patiently reading his longer posts to understand his position.
This post will be short:
[b]"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is and who was and who is co Those who truly want to know will take the time to read what I wrote here in brief.[/b]
Why are you avoiding this question?
Paul did not preach this doctrine to the early churches. So clearly it did not form part of his preaching missions which Christ sent him on. Is that correct?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe true charlatans are people like Moffat and Russell who decieve people by adding or changing the meaning of God's inspired word to fit their preconceived theological stance. but we know the bible says about doing that don't we Robbie, eh?
the forum may also be interested in other forms of dishonesty that charlatans like deucer and sincere but mislead and irredeemable persons like jaywill would have us believe.
http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part
out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep
the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Originally posted by duecerI thought you had unlimited intellect.
the true charlatans are people like Moffat and Russell who decieve people by adding or changing the meaning of God's inspired word to fit their preconceived theological stance. but we know the bible says about doing that don't we Robbie, eh?
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unt ...[text shortened]... in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
If the disciples and apostles at the time of Christ did not preach this Trinity doctrine, then its people you and Jaywill that are guilty of adding to Gods word.
I know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not the early church in the time of Paul taught this doctrine and the answer is NO. NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get it ?
Originally posted by Rajk999says who? Russell? He was a fraud, and had to admit in court during his trial that he didn't speak, read, or otherwise understand greek. so whom am I to believe? Some Johnny come lately frauds or 2000 years of church doctrine?
I thought you had unlimited intellect.
If the disciples and apostles at the time of Christ did not preach this Trinity doctrine, then its people you and Jaywill that are guilty of adding to Gods word.
I know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not th ...[text shortened]... NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get it ?
btw: how do you answer the charges that these frauds have changed the word of God and it meaning?
Originally posted by Rajk999and for good measure:
I thought you had unlimited intellect.
If the disciples and apostles at the time of Christ did not preach this Trinity doctrine, then its people you and Jaywill that are guilty of adding to Gods word.
I know you are impressed by the sheer number of Christians that believe in this ... 1,000,000,000 ? ... but the important question is whether or not th ...[text shortened]... NO... It was fabricated a couple hundred years after. ITS MADE UP. ITS AN ADDITION ... Get it ?
John 14
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
the bible doesnt contain the word bible, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Trinity is a theological term, a way of explaining the nature of God, much like the terms "GraceTheology", "Dispensationalism", "Unitarian"...get the picture?
Originally posted by jaywillif you could please comment on the verses under question Jaywill, that being John chapter 1 verse 1, you know the one that you initially sought to discredit with vague claims with regard to the definite article and 'loose translations', when it was really apparent, from the sahidic coptic text, written 200 years before the doctrine ever became established that your objections were unfounded and unsubstantiated, if you would please comment on that, then you will do well, as for this squirming here and there, it is rather characteristic of trinitarians when presented with an argument and evidence contrary to their beloved mystery, they seek to ignore it as you have done, put up a smokescreen and direct attention elsewhere, but we are not buying it Jaywill my friend, no siree!
In this discussion on "Who is Jesus?" there has been a complaint that someone will be "forced" to read long posts. Of course I did the complainer the respect of carefully and patiently reading his longer posts to understand his position.
This post will be short:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is and who was and who is co Those who truly want to know will take the time to read what I wrote here in brief.
Originally posted by duecerperhaps you can show where russel or moffat or anyone else for that matter added to the sahidic coptic text, for if you cannot then it is blatantly obvious that you are naught but a slanderer and a charlatan, and you know what the scriptures indicate with regard to those who tell porky pies? and if you could please find a more, well you know, less sixteenth century archaic English translation when quoting scripture, it may be conducive to your understanding, but hey, im not holding my breath or anything, for it is now. absolutely and incontrovertibly clear, that it is you people who are reading a 'doctored', version of scripture, one which translates John chapter one verse one as 'the word was God', when in fact there was no textual or other authoritative basis for doing so! and look, your house is abandoned to you!
the true charlatans are people like Moffat and Russell who decieve people by adding or changing the meaning of God's inspired word to fit their preconceived theological stance. but we know the bible says about doing that don't we Robbie, eh?
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unt ...[text shortened]... in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Originally posted by sumydidyes my friend, its obvious to any logical reasoning person, but it is difficult for someone who has been indoctrinated and thus challenged to see it so clearly.
Taken at face value, to me the Bible shows Jesus as both divine [Godly] and the Son of God.
I mean, come on... how is it that, according to the Bible, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God, but, they are one and the same?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJaywill already did that, or didn't you read his post?
[b]perhaps you can show where russel or moffat or anyone else for that matter added to the sahidic coptic text, for if you cannot then it is blatantly obvious that you are naught but a slanderer and a charlatan,
question: where in the Bible does it say that the election of the 144,000 stopped in 1935?
question: 1975 has come and gone, where was the ressurection? did the rest of us miss it?
Christ says "by their fruits ye shall know them". what kind of fruit is false prophesy hmmm?
Originally posted by duecerperhaps you can point it out, for i myself cannot find it, nor can i find where you have pointed it out, so please, if you cannot or will not or are unable to, you will continue to be what you are proving to be, a slanderer and a compete charlatan, so make with the reddies! deucer! where has moffat and russell or anyone else added to the sahdic coptic text, so as to alter its meaning, i want to hear you say it!
Jaywill already did that, or didn't you read his post?
question: where in the Bible does it say that the election of the 144,000 stopped in 1935?
question: 1975 has come and gone, where was the ressurection? dis the rest of us miss it?
Christ says "by their fruits ye shall know them". what kind of fruit is false prophesy hmmm?