Calm down bible lover.... I agree the story is fake/fiction... but for Rob it literally happened, therefore the discussion.
Jesus is a savior, to be held at a very high regard/loved because his actions led mankind to have a chance at everlasting life. Not higher than God, though. And I am aware, I believe it is the most accurate translation though. Of course others will beg to differ so many JW's also carry the King James version for that exact reason.
So then... he killed beings incapable of understanding what's right or wrong. Pure justice.
God made the law. He chose death for babies.
Fair enough, you can believe whatever bull you want. Why do you think or conclude it is the "most accurate translation" ?
Yes, the Bible does make that claim.
No he didn't, their parents did. You claiming otherwise won't make it not true. Parent's who were responsible for their children chose death for them. God warned them and they refused to listen. If a child was able to reason or understand and they chose not to listen then they were responsible for their death. But seeing as that was highly unlikely their parents chose for them. Do you make decisions for your daughter regarding serious matters? Or is she able to choose on her own?
Never read it tbh. I didn't realize you were just in with Rob.
No, people who do not understand/misinterpret the Bible do.
Do you believe the Bible is a literal book?
2 reasons is that most others use the word cross instead of stake when referencing Jesus's death and another is that most leave out the name Jehovah and replace it with God.
I'm talking about John 1:1 not the whole thing.... do you care what the oldest manuscripts say? do you even want to know, or are you happy concluding your translation is good because of two words?
Well you should of made your question more clear. You were talking about the Bible, not John 1:1. And of course I do. And I have done research on the subject. It is my conclusion that the translation of John 1:1 according to the Bible that the JW's use is the most accurate.
What's funny is I can usually get a feel for what will work. I thought, nay, it's been done too much......WRONG!!!!!!!
I need 41 pages to set my ...most page thread...record, so keep the bull flowing guys.
right.
There's no way around it.John 10:30Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
30*I and the Father are one.'
But you'll try again. And fail again.
I originally asked you about John 1:1 when you invited people to ask you bible questions. Anyways, would you mind sharing your research on the subject, what sources did you use? did you analyze papyrus-66 or other manuscripts? Do you know what textual criticism is?
Attention
Indeed
Yes, and then you asked why I though the Bible translation written by the JW's was the most accurate.
I haven't done much research on the subject. I got some information from various books written by the Watchtower and tract Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. I would have to look them up again seeing as I did that when I was 14-15. No I did not. Where do you get your direct translations from?
No one noticed that you completely ignored my other questions.
Was the word "God" or "a god"?
"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that theNew World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part ofJohn 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."
The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."
— David A. Reed
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
