Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

John 1:1

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 11:45:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

What's the contradiction?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 11:54:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:45:31 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

What's the contradiction?

To be God and b e with God is a logicxal contradiction, you cannot be with yourtself.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:47:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:54:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:45:31 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

What's the contradiction?

To be God and b e with God is a logicxal contradiction, you cannot be with yourtself.

So the trinity is a logical contradiction?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 12:47:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:54:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:45:31 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

What's the contradiction?

To be God and b e with God is a logicxal contradiction, you cannot be with yourtself.

So the trinity is a logical contradiction?

its not logical contradiction its contradiction.
Never fart near dog
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:35:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 12:47:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:54:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:45:31 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

What's the contradiction?

To be God and b e with God is a logicxal contradiction, you cannot be with yourtself.

So the trinity is a logical contradiction?

Logical, literal and more importantly scriptural contradiction yes.

In fact scriptrue clearly defines God's son as a created being, literally God's son created, Begotten, by him, and in fact that onyl thing that he created comltely on his own.

Revelation 3:14
ASV(i) 14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

The beginning, the first act of.

There are other scriptrues, such as

John 1:14; John 1:18; Colossians 1:3-5, whihc tell the saame story and clearly contradict anything other than God's son being literally that, his son.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 2:18:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

Maybe these explain it.

Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' If I don't do the works of my Father, don't believe me. But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
John 10:34-38

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

There have been many that have been called gods. But still, for us, disciples of Jesus:

For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 2:18:13 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

Maybe these explain it.

Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' If I don't do the works of my Father, don't believe me. But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
John 10:34-38

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

There have been many that have been called gods. But still, for us, disciples of Jesus:

For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6

Actually you have a good point, and that is why the alternative translation, though not exactly in favour, is that little bit more accurate.

The word god has many meanings and can simply mean someone in authority, whether spirit or human.

God's son was, and is, a god.

He had authority over the angels as God's son, and over humans also.

He now has even more authority thanks to faithful his faithful service under trial and as a human.

As an authority, a leader he is a god, was a god and always will be a god.

However he never has been, and never will be the ultimate God, and honour which Jehovah, his father will, as he made clear, share with none.

Worship, in sacriptural terms, actually boils down to respect. As such God is worthy of teh most, the ultimate worship and respect.

God's son, before and after becoming the Christ is due some, but not as much as his father.

That is the principle behind 1 Corinthians 11:3
ASV(i) 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 5:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

The Word is God's invisible creation where everything comes from. I'm here in this forum testifying to the Word of God.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 5:39:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

The Bible is a compilation of copies of copies of copies with a fair number of translation/copy errors, and I suspect John 1:1 is among those errors. [1]

Still, it can be overlooked as a contradiction depending on your interpretation of God.

The word God is a title, not a name. Just as we would not say a company of Walmarts, but simply Walmart, we do not say a trio of Gods, but simply God. As such, being with God, and being God isn't a contradiction as much as a redundancy.

Of course, the majority of Christians who believe in a schizophrenic god of three in one will disagree.

[1] Misquoting Jesus - Ehrman
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 7:25:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:11:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/17/2014 2:18:13 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

Maybe these explain it.

Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' If I don't do the works of my Father, don't believe me. But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
John 10:34-38

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

There have been many that have been called gods. But still, for us, disciples of Jesus:

For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6

Actually you have a good point, and that is why the alternative translation, though not exactly in favour, is that little bit more accurate.

The word god has many meanings and can simply mean someone in authority, whether spirit or human.

God's son was, and is, a god.

He had authority over the angels as God's son, and over humans also.

He now has even more authority thanks to faithful his faithful service under trial and as a human.

As an authority, a leader he is a god, was a god and always will be a god.

However he never has been, and never will be the ultimate God, and honour which Jehovah, his father will, as he made clear, share with none.

Worship, in sacriptural terms, actually boils down to respect. As such God is worthy of teh most, the ultimate worship and respect.

God's son, before and after becoming the Christ is due some, but not as much as his father.

That is the principle behind 1 Corinthians 11:3
ASV(i) 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

You still don't know what Christ or the Son of God means. False prophets like you can't understand any of the symbolic names used by God's saints and prophets that have much deeper meanings to them.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 12:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 5:39:47 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/17/2014 11:19:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Am I the only one who can see teh obvious contradiction in the accepted translation of that verse?

A contradiction whihc does nto exist in the alternative transaltions.

Compare:

John 1:1
ASV(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

With the following, and tell me that you can, or cannot, see the contradiction in that first versoion which does not appear in the others which follow: on from here.

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

The Bible is a compilation of copies of copies of copies with a fair number of translation/copy errors, and I suspect John 1:1 is among those errors. [1]


That is true, but God has protected it to the extent that you can still find the truth if you dig, and even the deeper truths with his help. That is why it is vital to use scripture to translate scripture, and to include the Hebrew Scriptures in with teh Christian Greek Scriptures

Still, it can be overlooked as a contradiction depending on your interpretation of God.

The word God is a title, not a name. Just as we would not say a company of Walmarts, but simply Walmart, we do not say a trio of Gods, but simply God. As such, being with God, and being God isn't a contradiction as much as a redundancy.


No, God is not a redundancy, though it is, as you say a title not a name. His self-declared name translates inot English as Jehovah.

It is however made up of only 4 consonants, whihc translaiterate from teh Hebrew as either JHVJ, YHWH.

Why teh confusion?

Because for many centuries I, Y, and J were interchangeable as were W and V, so it really is a case of take your pick, though in current English usage JHVH is the most accepted English version, hence Jehovah.

Of course, the majority of Christians who believe in a schizophrenic god of three in one will disagree.


I don't think Schizophrenic applies because schizophrenia, despite popular opinion, has nothign to do with split, or mulitple, personalities, but your point is well taken despite that.

[1] Misquoting Jesus - Ehrman
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 12:32:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 12:13:30 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is a compilation of copies of copies of copies with a fair number of translation/copy errors, and I suspect John 1:1 is among those errors. [1]


That is true, but God has protected it to the extent that you can still find the truth if you dig, and even the deeper truths with his help. That is why it is vital to use scripture to translate scripture, and to include the Hebrew Scriptures in with teh Christian Greek Scriptures

Wouldn't it be nice if God simply cleared it all up Himself?

Still, it can be overlooked as a contradiction depending on your interpretation of God.

The word God is a title, not a name. Just as we would not say a company of Walmarts, but simply Walmart, we do not say a trio of Gods, but simply God. As such, being with God, and being God isn't a contradiction as much as a redundancy.


No, God is not a redundancy, though it is, as you say a title not a name. His self-declared name translates inot English as Jehovah.

It is however made up of only 4 consonants, whihc translaiterate from teh Hebrew as either JHVJ, YHWH.

Why teh confusion?

I said the passage was redundant, not God. And I am very familiar, but disagree, with the JW belief about Jehovah.

Because for many centuries I, Y, and J were interchangeable as were W and V, so it really is a case of take your pick, though in current English usage JHVH is the most accepted English version, hence Jehovah.

Of course, the majority of Christians who believe in a schizophrenic god of three in one will disagree.


I don't think Schizophrenic applies because schizophrenia, despite popular opinion, has nothign to do with split, or mulitple, personalities, but your point is well taken despite that.

I was merely being facetious.

[1] Misquoting Jesus - Ehrman
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 5:11:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 12:32:20 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/18/2014 12:13:30 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is a compilation of copies of copies of copies with a fair number of translation/copy errors, and I suspect John 1:1 is among those errors. [1]


That is true, but God has protected it to the extent that you can still find the truth if you dig, and even the deeper truths with his help. That is why it is vital to use scripture to translate scripture, and to include the Hebrew Scriptures in with teh Christian Greek Scriptures

Wouldn't it be nice if God simply cleared it all up Himself?


He didn't make the mess, but it is his plan that will clear it up completely and make sure it can never be repeated.

Still, it can be overlooked as a contradiction depending on your interpretation of God.

The word God is a title, not a name. Just as we would not say a company of Walmarts, but simply Walmart, we do not say a trio of Gods, but simply God. As such, being with God, and being God isn't a contradiction as much as a redundancy.


No, God is not a redundancy, though it is, as you say a title not a name. His self-declared name translates inot English as Jehovah.

It is however made up of only 4 consonants, whihc translaiterate from teh Hebrew as either JHVJ, YHWH.

Why teh confusion?

I said the passage was redundant, not God. And I am very familiar, but disagree, with the JW belief about Jehovah.

Because for many centuries I, Y, and J were interchangeable as were W and V, so it really is a case of take your pick, though in current English usage JHVH is the most accepted English version, hence Jehovah.

Of course, the majority of Christians who believe in a schizophrenic god of three in one will disagree.


I don't think Schizophrenic applies because schizophrenia, despite popular opinion, has nothign to do with split, or mulitple, personalities, but your point is well taken despite that.

I was merely being facetious.

I did wonder, but I did you the courtesy of assuming not.

[1] Misquoting Jesus - Ehrman
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 5:32:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fatal to psycho MCB & Co.

Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. . . . .

e.g. "Question. The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty?

Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Jul 15 p.216

"In one respect many of Christendom could learn numerous important lessons from these wise Gentiles....They worshiped him in three senses of the word: (1) They fell before him, prostrated themselves, thus physically expressing their reverence. (2) They worshiped him in their hearts and with the tongue gave expression to their rejoicing and confidence. (3) They opened their treasure-box and presented to him three gifts appropriate to royalty: the myrrh representing submission, frankincense representing praise, gold representing obedience." Zion's Watch Tower 1906 Jan 1 p.15 (Source: http://www.jwfacts.com...)

psycho MCB & Co. still in tatters at my feet!

QED