Will believers be judged by the law?

[John317]

>>>OK, let's talk about that. Which of those translations do you find totally acceptable? Which do you reject outright as impossible or completely false?

"unique son." Not "only God." That would be stoopid. He is in the bosom of the father (eating supper). God is at the head of the table, he is at his side. Like this:

Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

How idiotic would it be if the only God at the table was not the one sitting at the head of the table?

How desperate are you for a prooftext for what is obviously an unsubstantiated dogma?

I'm not in complete agreement with your conclusion, but I can fully accept your translation and understanding of that verse.

[John317]

....Do you have any doubt in your mind that John is referring to the utterance of God in Genesis 1 through whom everything (that was made) was made? Let there be xxx? Is there any question about that in your mind?

Look at this paraphrase of JB Phillips of John 1: 1-3, 14, 18--

"At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him.... So the word of God became a human being and lived among us.... It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known."

What do you think?

[BibleShockers]

Let's consider MONOGENHS. What does that mean? It means "unique" or "one of a kind." If Jesus is MONOGENHS THEOS, then who is the father? If Jesus is in the classification "God" and he is "one of a kind" then there is no room for 2 more people. Certainly not his father and a ghost.

What if I told you that I had a unique, one of a kind swing set in my backyard. But there were actually 2 or more others of that kind within the neighborhood. Would I not be mistaken or a liar?

[BibleShockers]

>>>Look at this paraphrase of JB Phillips of John 1: 1-3, 14, 18

"At the beginning God expressed himself.

No. John is saying something specific. Sure, God was expressing himself in the trees and what not, but what he wants to answer is the question, "Who is the 'us' in 'let us make man in our image." And that is the utterance.. "let there be..." without which nothing was made that was made. And this utterance is God-utterance. It was uttered by God and thus had divine effectiveness. And it was not "self-expression" but rather creative command. So why obscure that John is talking about utterance?

>>>That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God,

That is identity, which I would have thought you knew is not what the Greek construction employed signifies. Are you a bit fuzzy on this?

>>>and he existed with God from the beginning.

No, "it." And it is not referring to "forever past" but Genesis 1. EN ARKH refers to gen 1.

>>>All creation took place through him, and none took place without him....

No. There were pre-existent things, like the abyss that were not made, so John differentiates "...that were made." And he only has Gen 1 in view. And the word is an "it" not a "him." It was God's command, not a person. As I've said before, Christians can't get a single thing right. "No not one."

>>>So the word of God became a human being and lived among us....

One must not imagine that God's utterance - his powers of speech and effective commands were a person separate from himself that turned into muscles. The word EGENETO is the word John uses for "making." The idea is that the flesh of Jesus, which represents the man Jesus, was generated by God's word, just as John was. The word would live in Jesus in the sense that he would express God and expound him through this unique man. Think of an animated avitar.

>>>It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known."

What do you think? I've covered this part before.

[John317]

JOHN3:17--- >>>Look at this paraphrase of JB Phillips of John 1: 1-3, 14, 18

>>>That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God...

Quote:

Bill--- That is identity, which I would have thought you knew is not what the Greek construction employed signifies. Are you a bit fuzzy on this?

Properly understood, both theologically and grammatically, the phrase "and the word was God" is not about identity. It is saying that the word was what God is. Phillips translation and the KJV is not asking the reader to identify the word with the Father. The Logos is not the God who He is with.

Here is a simple but accurate way to put it:

In the beginning the logos already existed. The logos was with the Father. And what the Father was as to his deity, the logos also was.

That is in complete agreement with the following translations:

"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. This Word was in the beginning in fellowship with God the Father."

(Revised English Bible)-- "and what God was, the word was."

William Barclay-- ".. and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God."

Andy Gaus-- "... and God was what the Word was."

[John317]

>

JOHN3:17-- >>>and he existed with God from the beginning.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- No, "it." And it is not referring to "forever past" but Genesis 1. EN ARKH refers to gen 1.

The text is telling us that the word was in the beginning [en arche]. The logos already existed at that time.

We do not know that John had the beginning of the earth in mind when he wrote John 1:1. It does not appear to me that John's reference in 1 John 1: 1 is to Genesis 1: 1.

But whether or not he was referring to Genesis 1: 1 or to some time further back is immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

[BibleShockers]

>>>Properly understood, both theologically and grammatically, the phrase "and the word was God" is not about identity. It is saying that the word was what God is. They saying the same thing...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity

****

Main Entry: iden·ti·ty

Pronunciation: \ī-ˈden-tə-tē, ə-, -ˈde-nə-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural iden·ti·ties

Etymology: Middle French identité, from Late Latin identitat-, identitas, probably from Latin identidem repeatedly, contraction of idem et idem, literally, same and same

Date: 1570

1 a: sameness of essential or generic character in different instances b: sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing : oneness

2 a: the distinguishing character or personality of an individual : individuality b: the relation established by psychological identification

3: the condition of being the same with something described or asserted <establish the identity of stolen goods>

4: an equation that is satisfied for all values of the symbols

5: identity element

****

But the Greek construction does not denote identity. It denotes a quality. For example, if I said that I have a lightning car, I mean that it is fast, not that my car and lightning are identical (as your derelict translations are trying to foist upon the public).

God-utterance is, as one would expect, of awesome effect:

Ps 29:5 The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.

Jer 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

So let's apply the Razor, shall we? Is John 1:3 a prooftext for the dogma that God is three people (including a man, his father and a ghost) all of whom make one person, not dividing the substance, blah, blah, blah... or is God's word powerful?

***

Occam's razor

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Variant(s): also Ock·ham's razor \&#712;ä-k&#601;mz-\

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be ***multiplied unnecessarily*** which is interpreted as requiring that the ***simplest*** [fewest parts] of competing theories be preferred to the more complex [Trinity!] or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first **in terms of known quantities** (One God)

***

[BibleShockers]

>>>It does not appear to me that John's reference in 1 John 1: 1 is to Genesis 1: 1.

Here is Genesis 1:1:

Gen 1:1 ***en arch*** epoihsen o yeov ton ouranon kai thn ghn

Here is Genesis 1:3:

Gen 1:3 ¶ And God **said**, ***Let there be*** light: and there was light.

Then..

Ge 1:26 And God said, ***Let us*** make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So John uses EN ARKH to define the time. He is explaining that the "us" refers to God's utterance, by which he made all things which were made. This word dwelled in Jesus as it dwells in all believers:

Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

This does not mean identity. That God is mute, now because his utterance has become muscles. Consider "birth":

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother‘s womb, and be born?

No. The point is not metaphysics but being filled with the words and breath of God.

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If Jesus WERE God's word in some metaphysical sense, God would be mute and Jesus would not "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>>All creation took place through him, and none took place without him....

Quote:

BILL-- No. There were pre-existent things, like the abyss that were not made, so John differentiates "...that were made." And he only has Gen 1 in view. And the word is an "it" not a "him." It was God's command, not a person. As I've said before, Christians can't get a single thing right. "No not one."

The Bible is very clear, Bill, that God made all things and that nothing exists that He did not make.

John 1: 3 says very clearly, "Though HIM [the word, ho logos] ALL THINGS were made." The pronoun is masculine, not neuter. Verse 10 says the world, or the universe, was made through HIM. Hebrews 1: 2,3 say the same thing, that it was the Son "through whom He [God the Father] made the universe." It also says that God spoke to us by or in His Son. These are all masculine pronouns.

Hebrews 1: 3 says that the Son is the exact representation of God's being and that the Son sustains ALL THINGS by the word of HIS [the Son's] power.

There are many other verses we could add to this. Psalms and Isaiah (particularly chapters 40 to 44) give more information on the subject of creation.

[John317]

OK, let's forget the theology for a while, and just look at the grammar and sentence structure of John 1: 1--

Let's parse the verse and see if we can both agree on that part of the verse.

By the way, there is not a single manuscript of John containing any significant variant at this verse.

So, if you have your Greek New Testament, read along with me;

Ev arche hn ho logos, kai ho logos hn pros ton theon, kai theos hn ho logos.

There is no question that this is the way the original was written.

I think we already agree on the first two sections of the sentence:

The logos was in [the] beginning, and the logos was with God....

I would like to add here that the verb hn also means to be or exist. Therefore one might rightly translate these phrases as, "The logos existed in [the] the beginning, and the logos existed with God...."

My own preference is: "In [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with God...."

I prefer to keep the translation as literal as possible-- that is, as long as the literalness does not prevent the reader from understanding what is being said.

Now it is your turn, Bill. Remember to try to keep it as literal as possible, although if you like, go ahead and also give the paraphrase; only please keep the literal reading distinct from your paraphrase, if you don't mind.

[BibleShockers]

>>>The Bible is very clear, Bill, that God made all things and that nothing exists that He did not make.

John 1: 3 says very clearly, "Though HIM [the word, ho logos] ALL THINGS were made." The pronoun is masculine, not neuter. Verse 10 says the world, or the universe, was made through HIM.

First of all, you can drop the "masculine" thing. It was stupid of me to bring up the the gender in the first place at it really is not relevant. But now, it is silly for you to bring it up because it is not relevant. It is an "it" because it is an "utterance" and utterances have no sexuality.

Secondly, you left off the qualifying phrase:

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made ***that was made***.

Was God made? Was he made through God's utterance? Do we have any indication in the text that the abyss was made?

>>>Hebrews 1: 2,3 say the same thing, that it was the Son "through whom He [God the Father] made the universe."

You can't get anything right and neither can your "Bibles":

"through him he delineated the ages." [AIWN]

>>>It also says that God spoke to us by or in His Son. These are all masculine pronouns.

It says "a son." The point is not identity but role.

>>>Hebrews 1: 3 says that the Son is the exact representation of God's being

Burn your useless translation. The word is KARAKTHR and it denotes a superficial likeness, such as a sketch. It was used of the images on coins, which were soft of two dimensional, approximated likenesses.

>>>and that the Son sustains ALL THINGS by the word of HIS [the Son's] power.

The word you translated "sustains" may be ambiguous but I wonder if you think that he "sustains" the universe. Who sustained everything while Jesus was dead? Or while he was in Miriam's belly? Or while he slept?

But it is clear that Jesus was dependent on God for everything:

3 Who being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person, and upholding all things by the word of his [God's] power...sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [God];

4 ¶ ***Being made*** so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance ***obtained*** a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, ***this day have I begotten thee***? And again, ***I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son***?

>>>There are many other verses we could add to this. Psalms and Isaiah (particularly chapters 40 to 44) give more information on the subject of creation.

Well, I have weighed the evidence of your tradition and as usual have found it bogus.

[John317]

Let's continue with parsing and translating John 1: 1. I think we basically agree with the first two phrases of the verse, so let's proceed to the last and critical part of it:

The entire verse, again:

Ev arche hn ho logos, kai ho logos hn pros ton theon, kai theo hn ho logos.

The logos was in [the] beginning, and the logos was with God....

"The logos existed in [the] the beginning, and the logos existed with God...."

"In [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with God...."

All of the above are saying the same thing. Do you agree?

Now the phrase: kai theos hv ho logos.

Notice that we have two nominative nouns. How do we know which noun is the subject and which is the predicate?

[BibleShockers]

>>>Let's continue with parsing and translating John 1: 1. I think we basically agree with the first two phrases of the verse, so let's proceed to the last and critical part of it...

John, remember that in religion, you are welcome to do as much research as you want to as long as you come up with the approved answer!

I don't want to play this game with you as you are not qualified. You have my translation. You have my interpretation. You don't learn when you are corrected, you just change the subject.

Suffering your tedious, slanted translation would be an unsufferable bore.

If you simply read the passage without "Trinity Colored Glasses" then you will not see a Trinity in there. It is only there in an over active imagination. Neither the word nor the concept is there. It does not exist anywhere in the Bible (except the antichrist).

If you see Trinity in John 1:1, you don't need a grammar, you need a shrink.

[John317]

JOHN 3: 17--->>>The Bible is very clear, Bill, that God made all things and that nothing exists that He did not make.

John 1: 3 says very clearly, "Though HIM [the word, ho logos] ALL THINGS were made." The pronoun is masculine, not neuter. Verse 10 says the world, or the universe, was made through HIM.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- First of all, you can drop the "masculine" thing. It was stupid of me to bring up the the gender in the first place at it really is not relevant. But now, it is silly for you to bring it up because it is not relevant. It is an "it" because it is an "utterance" and utterances have no sexuality.

It's important because it is a personal pronoun and has reference to a person, not a thing.

When, for instance, it says that the logos was with God, it does not make sense to say that a thing was with God. The preposition pros has to do with the logos being in relation to the Father, which is also indicated in John 1: 18; John 17: 5, 24; and many other verses.

Quote:

BILL ROSS-- Secondly, you left off the qualifying phrase:

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made ***that was made***.

Was God made? Was he made through God's utterance? Do we have any indication in the text that the abyss was made?

The last phrase does not change the first part of the sentence. It does not contract it. The last phrase is adding force to the first part, the whole of which means that there is nothing that has ever been made that was not made by God the Father through the agency of the logos, Jesus Christ. It is another way of saying God the Father and Christ made everything.

Even the "Jehovah's Witness" admit this is true. But they believe that God first made Christ and then Christ made everything else by the commandment and power of the Father.

In Genesis 1: 26, which you allude to, I believe that when God says, "Let us....", He was speaking to the pre-incarnate Christ. This idea is further developed throughout other portions of Scripture, as for instance, in Psalms and Isaiah.

[John317]

>>>Let's continue with parsing and translating John 1: 1. I think we basically agree with the first two phrases of the verse, so let's proceed to the last and critical part of it...

John, remember that in religion, you are welcome to do as much research as you want to as long as you come up with the approved answer!

Who is it who's unwilling to accept the translations and the documentation and Greek Lexicons?

The answers I am coming up with are all well-recognized by virtually all the translations as well as by the standard Greek-English Lexicons and all of the text books used for teaching Koine Greek in the universities.

Anyone reading this thread can see that. I have not rejected a single piece of documentary evidence or evidence that is found in the text books on Greek grammar.

But in any case, I am just glad that you have decided to come to the Adventist Forum and I pray that God will bless your search for truth. I've enjoyed our exchanges and I wish you the very best as you follow Christ and obey His Word.

[John317]

Continuation on John 1: 1---

Now the phrase: kai theos hv ho logos.

Notice that we have two nominative nouns. How do we know which noun is the subject and which is the predicate?

Bill, did you want to look at this and help me parse and translate it?

[BibleShockers]

>>>...Bill, did you want to look at this and help me parse and translate it?

Like I said, I would enjoy that about as much as root canal work.

I've given you my translation. I've show that the others are wrong and don't get the context.

So no. Just do your own translation and post it. I've already paid my dues on that one.

You already know that you MUST come to the conclusion dictated by your prophetess and your council "who acheives unity by controlling doctrine for the whole world."

So you won't come to any other conclusion.

So wangle away without me!

[John317]

Suffering your tedious, slanted translation would be an unsufferable bore.

If you simply read the passage without "Trinity Colored Glasses" then you will not see a Trinity in there. It is only there in an over active imagination. Neither the word nor the concept is there. It does not exist anywhere in the Bible (except the antichrist).

If you see Trinity in John 1:1, you don't need a grammar, you need a shrink.

OK, Bill.

The trouble with your response here is that if my translations are slanted, then almost all translation are slanted because I am only asking you to accept 99% of the translations ever made into English.

But you are free to decide these things, and so I only wish that you will keep studying with the purpose of finding the truth as it is in Jesus.

[John317]

>>>...Bill, did you want to look at this and help me parse and translate it?

Like I said, I would enjoy that about as much as root canal work.

I've given you my translation. I've show that the others are wrong and don't get the context.

So no. Just do your own translation and post it. I've already paid my dues on that one.

You already know that you MUST come to the conclusion dictated by your prophetess and your council "who acheives unity by controlling doctrine for the whole world."

So you won't come to any other conclusion.

So wangle away without me!

The problem is, Bill, that your translation does not take into account certain rules of Greek grammar which are explained in all the text books regarding translation of Koine Greek. You did give your translation, but if you will stick out this exercise you will see why all translations disagree with yours.

Why would you choose to stay with your own personal translation when it can be shown easily by a comparison with the translations of expert translators that it is in error?

Do you remember a while back when you mistakenly thought that the masculine noun, ho logos, was neuter? Those are some of the reasons for your mistaken assumptions and they often lead to significant mistranslations and mistaken theology.

I would urge you to return and take another look at the last phrase of John 1: 1. See how the very best translations have done it: such as the New American Standard, the New King James Version, and the New Revised Standard, as well as Robert Young's Literal.

When all four of such good translations agree, the best thing for an amateur translator to do is first look into analytical commentaries and Lexicons and see why his own personal translation is different. That seems like a given to me.

It's like if we see that 4 professional mathematicians agree on a math problem, we should probably assume that if we are coming up with a different answer (and we are not mathematicians), it is they know something that we do not.

[BibleShockers]

>>>The problem is, Bill, that your translation does not take into account certain rules of Greek grammar...

Which verse in my translation violates which rule of grammar?

Thanks,

[BibleShockers]

>>>I would urge you to return and take another look at the last phrase of John 1: 1. See how the very best translations have done it: such as the New American Standard, the New King James Version, and the New Revised Standard, as well as Robert Young's Literal...

My reading is both more accurate and more comprehensible. It is, in fact, the best translation available.

In Genesis 1, when God said "Let there be light," was that not the word of God? Of course it was.

Was it divinely powerful? Yes.

Was it Jesus? Um, no. It was his utterance. Jesus is a man.

When God said "This day have I begotten you," were the words he spoke the word of God? Did they have divine command? Were his words Jesus? No. Jesus was a man.

Now look at this passage:

Rev 21:

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

When God says "Behold I make all thing new," were those words the word of God? Of course. Did they have a divine quality? Of course. Were they Jesus? No. Jesus will be a man forever, and not a god.

So what is any way not a simple, clear understanding of John 1 in my reading? John is talking about the mighty word of God.

And in what way does my reading of John 1:1c not conform to the rules of Greek grammar? I've shown you how all of the translations you have proffered are off track. Their translation is slashed to ribbons by the Razor, because "they multipily entities unnecessarily." In this case,the entity is "God!"

[John317]

>>>The problem is, Bill, that your translation does not take into account certain rules of Greek grammar...

Which verse in my translation violates which rule of grammar?

Thanks,

You said,

Quote:

My reading is correct as it captures the adjectival force:

"God[utterance] was the word."

When you translated the phrase, "God [utterance] was the word," which Greek noun did you determine is the subject and which noun is the predicate? And how do you know which is which?

Tell me how the following should be translated:

kai ho theos hn o logos_______________________

kai logos hn ho theos _________________________

kai theos hn ho logos _________________________

Remember, of course, that our text reads: kai theos hv ho logos

This is important in explaining what the phrase means and why it must be translated a certain way and not other ways.

For instance, understanding these principles will help explain why it should not be translated, "And God was the Word," and "the Word was a god."

[BibleShockers]

Go right ahead, John. Show me the grammatical error I have made that they have not in John 1:1c.

I know the grammar, I know I'm right and they and you are wrong. It is as simple as that. But go ahead. Make my day!

[BibleShockers]

>>>When you translated the phrase, "God [utterance] was the word," which Greek noun did you determine is the subject and which word is the predicate? And how do you know which is which?

Please just spit it out. Just show the error.

[John317]

>>>When you translated the phrase, "God [utterance] was the word," which Greek noun did you determine is the subject and which word is the predicate? And how do you know which is which?

Please just spit it out. Just show the error.

For one thing, when it is translated, "And God was the word," it is making God the subject of the phrase, and this is wrong. God is not the subject; it is the predicate. "O logos" (the Word) is the subject. That is why it takes the definite article and the other noun, theos, occurs without the article.