21 Jun 11
Originally posted by galveston75It only has to be that way when you change the text like the NWT, otherwise it makes perfect sense
Nope..... It has to be taken as "a god" or else the rest of the Bible is wrong in it's explinations of Jesus and Jehovah's seperate beings. It can't be both ways.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DowardWell, there are a few problems invoking the Coptic here. The Coptic doesn't necessarily capture what the Greek means. The translator may have misinterpreted the Greek. Perhaps he had his own theological agenda. Perhaps, and this is very common, he simply followed Greek syntax to minute detail so omitted an article simply because the Greek text did not have an article. This happens very often in the Vulgate where Jerome, following the Greek, produces very non-Latinate grammar.
actually I think you missed the point altogether. Saying "he" was manifested does not negate the trinity doctrine in the least, nor does it in any way undemine the rest of the scriptures that explain the relationship. John 1:1-4, 14 still makes a powerful statement about the divine nature of Christ. The Sahidic Coptic text does nothing to undermine this point context to help us?
----
So you see, you still must deal with the John 1 passage.
The standard explanation for the lack of an article in John 1 is that this is simply how Greek grammar marks the subject complement. To say, 'the man was the officer' Greek would naturally drop off the second article: 'the man was officer'. Greek has free word order so this convention gives a much easier distinction between subject and subject complement for predication. The Latin does not have this, so Deus erat Verbum could theoretically mean 'word was God' or 'God was word' (the latter is more likely though because Latin is a bit more conventional on word order here).
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by galveston75You post all kinds of cut n paste are you kidding 🙂 ??
You really aren't paying attention as I and Robbie and even Rajj reason every which way we can come up with to make you guys think with common sense on this. I really hardly ever paste if your actually paying attention. Go back and look if you care too.
And hardly any of my questions ever get answered, so you way off on your opinion here.
And again M ...[text shortened]... er view the Bible in the same way. Then, so many things will suddenly make sense to you.
Manny
22 Jun 11
1 edit
Isaiah 9:6
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
How are we to understand this verse? The Jewish understanding is that this is speaking of the coming Messiah.
We believe that Jesus is this Messiah mentioned in this verse. Why the words Mighty God? Eternal Father? Even if you try to argue the Mighty God part away why did the writer use the term "Eternal Father" ? The writer is calling the coming Messiah the "Eternal Father" A term in any language reserved for God. His name will be called it says. This is a strong verse for identifying the nature of the Messiah without question.
Manny
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by menace71We find in Isaiah 48:11 God stating, "I will not give my glory unto another." But in John 17:5, the high priestly prayer of Jesus, He prayed, "Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Isaiah 9:6
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
How are we to understand this verse? The Jewish understanding is that this is speaking of the coming Messiah.
We believe that Jesus ...[text shortened]... his is a strong verse for identifying the nature of the Messiah without question.
Manny
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Manny
22 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I'm not scoffing at you, and I think if you look back at our exchanges you will find I never do - although you do to me my friend.
I never post anything I don't agree with. The point here though is do you read them or just scoff as usual and remain in the dark?
However, I do not always read your posts if they are clearly copy/paste jobs. Same way I never read Dasa/vishvuhetu's copy/paste load dumps.
Most of your posts I do read though (and robbie's). They are interesting and thought provoking even if I think they incorrect doctrinally.
ok
22 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Dowardwhat the heck is this? more mere unsubstantiated opinion. The textual integrity of the Codex Sinaiticus being questioned on what basis? that there are other earlier documents (not specified) that contain inaccuracies (again not specified) and you have the audacity to claim that an explanation is pretty slim? what a piece of pure nonsense, the fact of the matter, let me repeat that, the fact of the matter is that a codex which pre-dates anything up until that point has been found to have been altered by later interpolations to support the trinity doctrine! that is a fact. The codex sinaiticus does not read, 'God', it reads 'he', that is a fact. Do you understand the difference between actual fact and what is a mere opinion? Its just like a trinitarian to ignore the actual textual evidence, after all they have been doing it now for hundreds of years.
predating other manuscripts is not definitive proof that the translation is correct. There are plenty of earlier documents that have been rejected necause other parts of the text do not agree with known texts. Also the explaination given is pretty slim
the proper and accurate translation based on the Codex Sinaticus is not 'God', 'but 'he'. Fact.
1 Tim:3:16
And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
http://www.sinaiticus.com/
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by ChessPraxisyes i can see from your post that it must be the case, another Christian that cannot actually comment on the actual content of the post, what is it, like some kind of mental block that you guys have. Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
It's so hard to think for myself. I am converting to JW myself. (Turns off brain, turns on mouth and doorbell ringing finger)
22 Jun 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, there are a few problems invoking the Coptic here. The Coptic doesn't necessarily capture what the Greek means. The translator may have misinterpreted the Greek. Perhaps he had his own theological agenda. Perhaps, and this is very common, he simply followed Greek syntax to minute detail so omitted an article simply because the Greek text did not have an article. This happens very often in the Vulgate where Jerome, following the Greek, produces very non-Latinate grammar.
Well, there are a few problems invoking the Coptic here. The Coptic doesn't necessarily capture what the Greek means. The translator may have misinterpreted the Greek. Perhaps he had his own theological agenda. Perhaps, and this is very common, he simply followed Greek syntax to minute detail so omitted an article simply because the Greek text did not have ter is more likely though because Latin is a bit more conventional on word order here).
Do you have any proof of these assertions other than what Jerome did with the Vulgate or is it possible that, perhaps, they may be, although not necessarily so, destined to remain within the realm of mere unsubstantiated opinion
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Trinitarianitis."
yes i can see from your post that it must be the case, another Christian that cannot actually comment on the actual content of the post, what is it, like some kind of mental block that you guys have. Interesting phenomena, i wonder what its called?
( A mind numbing disease and if not properly treated can cause spiritual blindness and possibly death but one that can be cured by reading the Bible daily. But do not mix with any amount of paganism!!! )
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'He was made manifest in the flesh.' In place of “he,” the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for “God,” made by a small alteration of the Greek word for “he.” However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading “God.” Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Interesting from a textual point of view that the term God in 1st Timothy 3:16 is actually an interpolation, a corruption of the Greek verse for he.
In 1859 Tischendorf found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Christian Greek Scriptures in a monastery at the base of Mount Sinai, the Codec Sinaiticus, how did it read at 1 Timothy 3:16 ...[text shortened]... ced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Dithpicable! what have you to say for yourselves now?
Completely wrong. The majority of manuscripts do not interpolate 'God' nor is there a pronoun 'he'. The syntax of the Greek is quite clear:
kai homologoumenos mega estin to tes eusebeias mysterion: hos ephanerothe en sarki
And evidently the great mystery of awe was revealed: who was revealed in flesh.
Curiously the Latin replaces the masculine pronoun hos with a neuter:
et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne
And evidently great was the sacrament of piety which was revealed in flesh.
I don't see how this verse could be taken in support of the Trinity but nor do I have any idea what you are talking about either Robbie.