Author Topic: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"  (Read 5333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12529
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
My apologies, you're right. Also, I think he's a crossdresser, too.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6508
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Well, since the operation, I can't blame Her...
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12529
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
True.


-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1300
  • Darwins +416/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Revelation 13:8 (NIV):

Quote
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  This seems to be a popular view among Evangelical Christians.  In which case, my reference to Jesus as a "sacrificial son," is accurate, since the sacrifice is an eternal part of his nature and/or mission.

Different translations give different results though:

Quote
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

Quote
and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. (New Revised Standard Version)

These attach the clause "from the foundation of the world" to the book, rather than to the Lamb.

Quote
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)

Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

Quote
And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

This sort of thing ought to set off alarm warnings in the mind of every "Bible-believing" Christian.  Whether it's Jesus that was slain from the foundation of the world (making his sacrifice an eternal aspect of his nature, hence "sacrificial son"), or the names of the saved being written in the book before the foundation of the world (and thus, no free will)...is kinda important.  The whole premise of a perfect, infallible, all-powerful god who wants to communicate his self-revelation to* us through a book--and that our eternal destiny should depend on our specific understanding of it (i.e., Vile Heretics burn in Hell)--collapses when you run into something like this.  Fortunately, this thread happens to be in the right section of the Forum. :) 


*Edit: Computer glitch wouldn't let me finish, had to post what I had, then go start a different browser.  Also, some other edits made during proofreading after I finished writing the post.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 03:24:01 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline J0SH

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Unbeliever of the bullshit.
"In the beginning was the Bullshit, and the Bullshit was with God, and the Bullshit was God"
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."  -Robert M. Pirsig
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” -Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Revelation 13:8 (NIV): All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  ...

Different translations give different results though:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)


Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

The problem is that it may be translated any way but it remains an example of prolepsis

The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:
Quote
prolepsis, a figure of speech in which something is described prematurely in terms that are not yet applicable: ‘I am dead, Horatio’ (Hamlet 5.2.285).

The dramatic effect of this figure of speech was not lost upon Shakespeare nor those of his contemporaries who were busy writing KJV1611 by translating the Vulgate.

The post-positional adjective emphasises the drama and gravity of what is being said.

The classical example is:  “The robbers befriended the rich man and offered to show him the way to the hotel. He agreed and the robbers and their dead companion walked off into the night.”

The Bible is full of prolepsis, usually in the form of cryptic passages announcing the arrival of the Savior/Second Coming/Paradises/ etc:
Quote
1946   W. Manson Jesus, the Messiah 164   Examples of the prolepsis by which the coming of the Son of Man is anticipated in the fortunes of Jesus.
so much so that, as you see, books are written on it.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 05:31:19 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
If by making them up you imply the same way he made up the laws of the universe, yes. I didn't want to spout this, but I will for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins. That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.
But in Luke 5:20-25, Jesus not only forgives a man his sins by stating it (no blood was spilled) but corroborates his authority to do so by curing the man's paralysis.  No death or sacrifice was required.  Did Jesus lie when he claimed to forgive the man's sins?  Did he sin himself, by not following protocol?  This protocol was so binding that Jesus wound up giving his own life, and when he prayed to his father to ask that he "take this cup" from him (ie, find a way to prevent his torture and death) he was denied.  Is this another instance where we shrug our shoulders, blame "fallibility" and act as if it doesn't matter because his intentions were good?

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

 Preexistance of Jesus seems to be a stumbling block for you all as well. He already was/is that is how he can be sent otherwise he would be brought into the world. As for Jesus being "The Salvation" wouldn't it stand to reason that God being all knowing would already know what would happen and had a plan to save us before the foundation of the world Rom8:28-29?

As for free will, many Christians would say we all have free will. However, there is a doctrine of Grace (calvinism) which says the only free will is that of God and ours is only an illusion. Many Christians believe this to be the case.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Elohim is not and cannot be the trinity, that is shoehorning Jesus and the ghost into something it never was. It has been addressed.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

 Preexistance of Jesus seems to be a stumbling block for you all as well. He already was/is that is how he can be sent otherwise he would be brought into the world. As for Jesus being "The Salvation" wouldn't it stand to reason that God being all knowing would already know what would happen and had a plan to save us before the foundation of the world Rom8:28-29?

As for free will, many Christians would say we all have free will. However, there is a doctrine of Grace (calvinism) which says the only free will is that of God and ours is only an illusion. Many Christians believe this to be the case.

Well, Harbinger, I take it you don't have Greek so have not read John in Greek. If so, let me point out to you that the original documents were written in capital letters only with no gaps between the words. Thus, in the original the word 'WORD' was not a proper noun or even an ordinary noun apart from the word chosen by the reader. Translators have taken the view that, given the usage in the passage, that this is a proper noun.

Quote
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life,a and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.[1]
 1. quoted from http://biblia.com/books/nrsv/Jn1.1

This text talks about the pre-existing Word and, later in the chapter talks about the Word becoming flesh. That, to most people means Jesus. Also the word for 'word' in Greek is Logos. Logos was using the Greek philosophy to mean more than just word and those meanings have to be considered in understanding the text.

So far as Jesus is concerned there is nothing in Genesis that precludes his pre-existence and, indeed, the very fact of the plural use of Elohim probably encouraged John in what he wrote.

Maybe, harbinger, you could show us an interpretation of John that precludes the connection of Jesus and the Word.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm

As you will see from this link Koina Greek in fact uses spaces And capital letters. You are thinking of Hebrew.

I can't supply a translation that makes "the Word" not Jesus. It would contradict the txt if it were translated as such. I would However suggest maybe looking at the JW's new world translation. I have not. Nor care to. I know what they believe about Jesus in the first place. I assume they would have had to butcher this translation to fit. Just bear in mind they had NO linguistic experts of any kind, not even english, on the translation board. Furthermore, they started with an idea to prove rather than seeking an objective translation. I would also add Most every Christian that has bothered to study what they teach would agree they are not Christian.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm

As you will see from this link Koina Greek in fact uses spaces And capital letters. You are thinking of Hebrew.

No, I have Hebrew and Greek and can assume you that the ancient manuscripts are as described. You are looking at the text tidied up and arrange for you to see.

Quote

I can't supply a translation that makes "the Word" not Jesus. It would contradict the txt if it were translated as such. I would However suggest maybe looking at the JW's new world translation. I have not. Nor care to. I know what they believe about Jesus in the first place. I assume they would have had to butcher this translation to fit. Just bear in mind they had NO linguistic experts of any kind, not even english, on the translation board. Furthermore, they started with an idea to prove rather than seeking an objective translation. I would also add Most every Christian that has bothered to study what they teach would agree they are not Christian.

I understood you to be saying the the Word was not Jesus, If you accept that, fine, it will save discussion.

The J Ws modify one word in John from 'and the word was god' to and the word was a god.' They then claim that they are monotheistic whilst leaving Jesus as some subservient god which doesn't make sense.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
There is a problem with the Gospel of John. Firstly, John did not write it. Christians generously assume that John was “the inspiration.” You can take this how you want. It was thought by Eusabius[1] that John was written to counter various early heresies. This idea held sway until the late 19th century. Today, it is regarded as a composite piece constructed around 100AD by various authors from various sources (including their imagination) none of which are particularly reliable.

Examination of the Gospel shows that there are several authors. The first seems to have died part way into the work and his job was taken over by others who, like Eusabius, had their own agenda.

Wikipedia has
Quote
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
1.   An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.   A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.   The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[25]

And adds
Quote
Among others, Rudolf Bultmann suggested[29] that the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4:[30]
4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, while chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee because "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him," a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements

It does not end there. In http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Jackson.html we read,
Quote
What is remarkable in Jackson's work is that in spite of being very much a modernist and a realist about the internal evidence concerning John's Gospel, he nonetheless sees a clear break, a severe unconnectedness in John between 7:52 and 8:12 when the Pericope de Adultera is removed.

He is so convinced of this incontinuity, he uses it as evidence that John generally has suffered editing or dislocations by a final redactor or compiler. Although convinced by others that John 8:1-11 is an interpolation on textual grounds, he is just as certain that its removal solves nothing of the problem of John at this place in the text.
[…]
The Pool of Bethesda: John 5:3b-4
[Just] As certainly, the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4, are no part of the original Gospel, and here it is suggested that an evident gap has been filled in, by way of explanation, by some later hand; that, as the section originally stood, the genuine v, 7 was unintelligible, and hence the piece of information which, now properly relegated to the margin of the R.V., ultimately found its way into the text[2]
 2. The story of the Pool of Bethesda is exceptionally idiotic. Whoever wrote it had never been there and assumed that nobody would ever bother checking - he was wrong and in most Bible versions, it is omitted.

At this stage, you may be coming to the conclusion that John is just so much garbage and invention that has been badly edited. However, it is little or no different from any of the other Gospels in this respect. Some of the scribblings bear a remarkable resemblance to the Qumran Scrolls and probably account for the “non-Jewish” nature of the Gospel.

So, when we come to ask what John:1:1 means, the answer is “God knows”. The additions, amendments, corrections, insertions, redactions, inventions, etc. etc. were done all over the place.

I looked up a commentary on John:1:1 and as a bonus got two. The first was an incomprehensible passage that simply assumed things. The second was a wall of text that left me feeing that nothing had been explained and that if so much writing were required to explain one verse, then the writer had no idea of what it meant either.

 1. also known as “Eusabius the Liar” for his idea that telling lies is a good way of gaining converts and thus saving souls.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Yes, Greybeard, the gospels are a bit of a mishmash of texts and redactions. Nonetheless, I'm dubious that any have a a first-hand eye-witness account in them. R E Brown is  Catholic scholar and  does his best to help the church out but given the John is so late compared with the other gospels it seems hard to believe that he has anything other than third hand stories and, or course, his own working of the theology especially in the long speeches he gives to Jesus.

Really, the gospels give us an insight into the beliefs and practice of various churches in the late 1st century even though they purport to be describing the events of the late 20s, first century. the only problem we have is that we don't quite know which churches originated which gospel!
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 04:55:42 PM by wheels5894 »
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
How the word 'Logos' is translated and/or understood within the context of John helps determine what meanings can be gleaned from the passage. Logos was a word familiar to the Jews of the 1st century as it was used by the Hellenists, with Philo being chief among them, to denote an intermediary divine being such as a messenger of the Lord that was necessary to bridge the gap between God and the material world. It was also thought of and used as a stand in for the reason, intent, or purpose (e.i. logic) behind one's actions.

All that said, it sure seems likely that the writer of John 1:1-15 was equating Jesus to this intent, message, or "word" of God, especially in verse 14 where it speaks of this logos of god becoming embodied (made flesh). Even with that, we still have no way of knowing the intent of the writer. Was the writer saying Jesus was an avatar used by God to dwell amongst men? Was he saying that Jesus was the embodiment of God's creative intent and the reason behind it all? Who knows?


Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
R E Brown is  Catholic scholar and  does his best to help the church out but given the John is so late compared with the other gospels it seems hard to believe that he has anything other than third hand stories and, or course, his own working of the theology especially in the long speeches he gives to Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)#Redating_the_New_Testament.2C_1976
John A. Robinson actually wrote a book entitled Redating the New Testament where he asserts that the entirety of the texts were writen prior to the Temple's destruction in AD 70.

What he and those who believe the idea of early authorship seem to miss is that their assertions give Bible critics yet another reason to doubt the truthfulness of the NT scriptures as its prediction of a triumphant returning Christ in the 1st century clearly failed.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 05:54:05 PM by Truth OT »

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
There is a problem with the Gospel of John. Firstly, John did not write it. Christians generously assume that John was “the inspiration.” You can take this how you want. It was thought by Eusabius[1] that John was written to counter various early heresies. This idea held sway until the late 19th century. Today, it is regarded as a composite piece constructed around 100AD by various authors from various sources (including their imagination) none of which are particularly reliable.

Examination of the Gospel shows that there are several authors. The first seems to have died part way into the work and his job was taken over by others who, like Eusabius, had their own agenda.

Wikipedia has
Quote
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
1.   An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2.   A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3.   The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[25]

And adds
Quote
Among others, Rudolf Bultmann suggested[29] that the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4:[30]
4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, while chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee because "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him," a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements

It does not end there. In http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/Jackson.html we read,
Quote
What is remarkable in Jackson's work is that in spite of being very much a modernist and a realist about the internal evidence concerning John's Gospel, he nonetheless sees a clear break, a severe unconnectedness in John between 7:52 and 8:12 when the Pericope de Adultera is removed.

He is so convinced of this incontinuity, he uses it as evidence that John generally has suffered editing or dislocations by a final redactor or compiler. Although convinced by others that John 8:1-11 is an interpolation on textual grounds, he is just as certain that its removal solves nothing of the problem of John at this place in the text.
[…]
The Pool of Bethesda: John 5:3b-4
[Just] As certainly, the verses ch. v, 3 b, 4, are no part of the original Gospel, and here it is suggested that an evident gap has been filled in, by way of explanation, by some later hand; that, as the section originally stood, the genuine v, 7 was unintelligible, and hence the piece of information which, now properly relegated to the margin of the R.V., ultimately found its way into the text[2]
 2. The story of the Pool of Bethesda is exceptionally idiotic. Whoever wrote it had never been there and assumed that nobody would ever bother checking - he was wrong and in most Bible versions, it is omitted.

At this stage, you may be coming to the conclusion that John is just so much garbage and invention that has been badly edited. However, it is little or no different from any of the other Gospels in this respect. Some of the scribblings bear a remarkable resemblance to the Qumran Scrolls and probably account for the “non-Jewish” nature of the Gospel.

So, when we come to ask what John:1:1 means, the answer is “God knows”. The additions, amendments, corrections, insertions, redactions, inventions, etc. etc. were done all over the place.

I looked up a commentary on John:1:1 and as a bonus got two. The first was an incomprehensible passage that simply assumed things. The second was a wall of text that left me feeing that nothing had been explained and that if so much writing were required to explain one verse, then the writer had no idea of what it meant either.
 1. also known as “Eusabius the Liar” for his idea that telling lies is a good way of gaining converts and thus saving souls.

Please supply source material. preferably not a wiki link. Not for the commentary. A true Christian wouldn't even use that garbage anyway. I also suspect this commentary concerns the bible not the original txt, as there was no verse nor chapter separation. I would also be interested to know something of this man's personal convictions. It always helps to know the motivations.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Truth:
Quote from: Book of the One Above All
In The Beginning, there was the One Above All. He was omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, invincible and benevolent. In His infinite wisdom, He spawned forth one universe. The One Above All watched, without interfering in any major way, as the universe He created evolved. After a very long time, one being in this universe managed to ascend and join the One Above All in eternal glory as a god. The One Above All then spawned another universe, whereas the newly empowered god created a different one. From each universe, a new god arose. The cycle continued for countless eons, with The Plan being fulfilled in each and every universe without fail.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.

"The Word" is not capitalized in Koine Greek.  Words are not capitalized in Koine Greek to indicate proper nouns or names/titles.

I would have to agree with you that the "Word" is referring to Jesus in John 1.  However, the "Word" may or may not be actually equated with the one true God.  This might be hard to believe but when I was a Christian I found that there were many difficulties in the Bible.  I was fortunate enough back then to come across a great bargain on a book entitled, "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by the popular apologist, Norman L. Geisler.  Once I saw the size of this book I should have immediately abandoned my belief that the Bible was the inerrant word of God.  I am ashamed how I held on to this view of the Bible for so long in my life.  Ironically, this book of bible difficulties is actually a lot thicker than my Bible.  When I lost my faith I was pissed that I spent $2.50 on this book but now I hold it up as an object lesson to those who think the bible is inerrant.  Although it takes up a massive amount of room on my book shelf, I think it is at least worth the money to keep it around and use it as an object lesson as I keep my old Bible right next to it.     

Anyway, there is no definite article before God in the last part of John 1:1 (...the Word was God).  However, there is a definite article before God in the first mentioning of God in this verse.  Norman L. Geisler states in this book: "In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted.  Thus, the verse can be rendered, 'and the Word was of the nature of God'."

The JW's actually have a compelling argument concerning this verse and their translation of this verse ("...the Word was a God) could actually be more accurate than most "Trinitarian" translations of this verse.  If the Word was only of the nature of God then this verse could actually be excluding Jesus from being the one true God as my son is of the nature of me but is not actually me.

But who knows, the Bible is written so ambiguously that only the writer of this section of John actually knows the correct meaning.  The Bible was made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, with different theologies for different purposes and it was written so ambiguously that what came out of all of it was different interpretations.     


Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.

I would have to disagree with the two words you used in this sentence: "showing clearly".  There are not very many things that are clearly shown in the bible and the doctrine of the Trinity is definitely not clearly shown in the bible.  Iranaeus (120-202 AD) was an early church father and check out how he interpreted the Hebrew word Elohim.  The "plural" you are referring to could be signified as "that which contains all" and not meaning a plurality of persons in the Godhead (the Trinity).  Read section 3 of this letter of Iranaeus:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxvi.html

In my estimation, a lot of the early "Church Fathers" before the council of Nicea seemed to have more of an Arian view of Christ and the Godhead.

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Just to mention the Greek here. The verse 'and the word was god' is the one JWs latch onto to show that Jesus was not 'the god' but 'a god' the Greek says, literally, 'the word was god. Now when there is a complement in Greek (i.e. with the verb to be is being used the complement is the second thing to be mentioned - e.g. 'my cat is Willow', Willow is the complement. It's like an object but the very 'to be' doesn't have any action.) Anyway, the article is left off the complement in Greek to show which word is the complement. Remember in languages like Greek word order is not important as all the words have the ending suited to their role in the sentence.

So our verse has the Word as the subject and god as the complement. Thus we could translate it as either 'the word was the god' or the more normal 'the word was god' given then the readers usually accept that there is only one god.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Please supply source material.
I don't wish to appear lazy but if you follow the link or look up Wiki article on "The Gospel of JohnWiki", you will find what you are looking for
Quote
preferably not a wiki link.
Well, Wiki has links to links. Try them.
Quote
A true Christian wouldn't even use that garbage anyway.
Yes, I know - was it not Jesus who said, "And the foolish virgin consulted Wikipedia and her soul was lost."?
Quote
I also suspect this commentary concerns the bible not the original txt,
You should know by now that there is no "original text." However, there are some manuscripts that survive. Not all identical and there are others that must pre-date John and yet contain similar material.
Quote
as there was no verse nor chapter separation.
As I seem to recall, chapter and verse separation appear relatively late on.
Quote
I would also be interested to know something of this man's personal convictions. It always helps to know the motivations.
And also provides excellent ammunition for an ad hominem argument, eh? : )
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 09:49:12 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
And you forgot his phobia re: iron chariots.
This, from “The Hexateuch” By W. E. Addis, Pub. 1893 is mildly interesting as stones were hewn with iron tools:

Ex:20:25. And if thou make me an altar of stones thou shalt not build it of hewn stones, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. (Hebrew Bible)

Which has the footnote:

‘Thou hast polluted.' For the early superstitions which forbade the use of iron, see Frazer's The Golden BoughWiki[1] i. pp. 172- 178.

 1. and http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bough11h.htm The reference goes to Chapter 21 but does not specifically address Judaism
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Wow, look at all these different translations for one single verse.  Why do you think God would make his word so confusing.  Why couldn't he just make all humans speak the same language so there would be no confusion when it comes to understanding his "divine" word.  Oh ya, it's because he was scared of humans building to big of a tower in babel.  Doesn't that story sound ridiculous now that we know how massive the universe is?

In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article.  Consider a biblical example of this in John 6:70:  Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the twelve?  Yet one of you is a devil!"  The noun devil can act more like an adjective.  Jesus was saying that Judas had the qualities of the devil.  The lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.  Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes in his book "Jesus as They Saw Him":

When in greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs... "John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore , is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs... "This passage then [John 1:1] does not identifiy the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God.

"
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Harbinger,

The oldest piece of John's Gospel is dated to around 125 CE
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god option 3 creates many gods this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him. seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
 don't see much conflict between options 1 and 2. As Jesus could be rightly depicted as being God or sharing in the nature of God therefore, the actual shared nature makes Him also God. Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification. However, the Word is refered to as He and Him. ariving at 1:14 the word became flesh taking the whole council of the bible line upon line precept upon precept there is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God. It's not that hard. keep it in context of the whole Bible as well as the whole chapter you found it in.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god option 3 creates many gods this would make God a liar. He said there are no gods other than Him. seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
 don't see much conflict between options 1 and 2. As Jesus could be rightly depicted as being God or sharing in the nature of God therefore, the actual shared nature makes Him also God. Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification. However, the Word is referred to as He and Him. arriving at 1:14 the word became flesh taking the whole council of the bible line upon line precept upon precept there is little choice that the word is Jesus who is God. It's not that hard. keep it in context of the whole Bible as well as the whole chapter you found it in.

....so just what are you arguing for here? I'm not clear where you are going with this?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
so we have a few a options in the translation... either the Word is God or the Word shares the same nature as God or simply the word is a god........

The terminology seems to be causing you to be confused to the point where you make unnecessary assertions and place limitations on the possible interpretations that you need not place.
This texts says NOTHING at all about the nature of god (Greek theos meaning mighty, not Hebrew El or Elohim) or the nature of the LOGOS translated in most texts as 'word'. All it says is that the logos was with the mighty one and that the logos itself was in fact mighty and eventually was embodied in human form.

...option 3 creates many gods this would make God a lier. He said there are no gods other than Him.

But wasn't this god you claim this about also quoted as having stood in the "gathering of gods" in Psalm 82?

seeing that we know Elohim is the creator when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.

Only we know no such thing AND on top of that, this "trinity" concept you assert calls for yet another big leap that throws logic out of the window.

Place 1:1 in context and you see this Word is a person or at the least a personification.

Or this logos was a concept that originated from the mighty one that eventually came to be embodied based on what the writer of John claims.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
seeing that we know Elohim is the creator
Um, we don't "know" any such thing, but for the sake of argument.....
Quote
when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
...do you realize that this "trinity" concept puts christians at odds with the other two major Abrahamic religious traditions? All three share the OT as THE source document for the basis of their beliefs but only christianity assumes a trinity - the other two find the concept shocking and blasphemous. Same source, dramatically different conclusions draw from it.

And in some cases, those differences of interpretation are worth killing over.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 02:19:02 PM by Jag »
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
seeing that we know Elohim is the creator
Um, we don't "know" any such thing, but for the sake of argument.....
Quote
when he says let US  make man...  the only "us" that could be helping make man is the trinity.
...do you realize that this "trinity" concept puts christians at odds with the other two major Abrahamic religious traditions? All three share the OT as THE source document for the basis of their beliefs but only christianity assumes a trinity - the other two find the concept shocking and blasphemous. Same source, dramatically different conclusions draw from it.

And in some cases, those differences of interpretation are worth killing over.

Well that's the problem of deities not making sure their texts ar4e correctly written down so as not to leave things open for interpretation. 'Elohim' is plural in the Genesis text - probably to avoid the use of an existing Babylonian god El but also to show the greatness of the character, being a such an amazing type. the trouble is that the use of the plural form meant that further on in Genesis, when the creation of Man comes along, we have the 'let us make god in our own image' which immediately makes us think of an heavenly council - rather like earthly rulers would have had. We can also think that it is how a king or queen might speak (here in the UK the queen used the 1st person plural being herself as a person and the queen.) It could have been what the Hebrews thought but we don't really have any way of knowing.

So, we have badly written texts so it is hardly surprising that John jumps in with his gospel and takes the 'word' that Elohim issues to create things and links it to Jesus. As the spirit of god (ruah elohim) is also in the beginning of genesis, it is hardly surprising that the early theologians could come up with a workable trinity that match Genesis. The important thing was that the people clearly though Jesus wasn't just the usual wandering preacher and started worshipping him. After that, well the Trinity had to be born.

Now this is all very well but the other religions - well Judaism, the Christians though should have converted and the Muslims clearly didn't recognise the finality of the Gospels wherein their religion should never have been started; and neither should the Mormons come to that. (Those two religions have a lot in common in their founding don't they?) That's as far as Christians are concerned. The other rligions might just not agree though...
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)