Enigma: For the records, I need to make a clarification.

The quotation of Ignatius that I used is from the Epistle to the Tarsians. However, that epistle is disputed as to whether it is a genuine work of Ignatius.

So instead, I quote from a different epistle of Ignatius which is less controversial i.e.the one to The Trallians.

you know me that church fathers whose authority superceeds that of the bible is not for me.

AIO will deal with that when he comes round.

.

truthislight: . . . .
but you know that the words of this institution church fathers carry more weight than the bible?

If i am wrong i stand corrected.

My point is that some people follow the bible with "a revelation" of their own that they feel is correct.

First of all, you would need to clarify what you mean by "institution" and "church father".

Second and far more important, whatever anyone or any "institution" says does not carry more weight than what is in the Bible.

My interest is to try and understand what is in the Bible as best as possible. Anything anyone says is only to help with that purpose not to have "greater weight".

EDITED

truthislight: . . . . I for one take a "bow"

I think I'm going to do the same; the important and necessary points have been made already.

Enigma: ^^^ What is all this that you are saying? I'm afraid I see your last three posts as rambling on things which are either not disputed, pointless or not even true!

How many times have I said that I agree that a translation could be influenced by doctrinal bias? And I have said that the chief example so accused is the JW's NWT!

when did it get started?

Why is it that most christians say that Jesus is almighty God and some say that Yahweh is almighty God?

Please, did this division get start after the JW NWT was translated/produce?

If not, who is the culprit ?

Who was the first to use religious bias to influence his traslation of the bible?

If you say that there are no inconsistencies in the belief that Jesus is almighty God and Yahweh tell me and let me point out some to you, though i already know that you enigma is aware of this but will rather stick with "the church fathers"

the question is who started it since the JW bible is very new, (1950 or so)?

Is it that the almighty God that gave us brain cannot give a book that is consistent?

Was the JW NWT bible responsible for the disagreement for over a thousand years back.

My friend, i need answers
thank you.

Am very happy that you agreed with me that :

Enigma:
How many times have I said that I agree that a translation could be influenced by doctrinal bias?

very good of you my friend.

Which translation was affected and responsible for the confusion and argument befor the NWT?

Who were responsible for those translations?

Am waiting.

^^^ I thought you had taken a "bow".

Well, I have taken a "bow" now.

Meanwhile your shift towards a discussion of the Trinity is for other threads, I'm afraid.

So I regard this post as an encore and I take a bow again.

Enigma: ^^^ I thought you had taken a "bow".

Well, I have taken a "bow" now.

Meanwhile your shift towards a discussion of the Trinity is for other threads, I'm afraid.

So I regard this post as an encore and I take a bow again.

lol.

Ok o my man.

Let me take a bow again. Lol
peace

The major disconnection between the OT and NT.
Irreconciliable!

Enigma: ^^^ Reason could be fine ---- if used in a proper context. Some have even used "logic".
Question is what is most appropriate?
In addition, there is the subsidiary question of how far can we go: can we say, "in the beginning was story . . ." or "in the beginning was mouth . . . ."?
But I agree though that the more key one is the translation "a god".

i get ur point! D "mouth" case does seem inappropriate

Enigma: ^^^ What is all this that you are saying? I'm afraid I see your last three posts as rambling on things which are either not disputed, pointless or not even true!

How many times have I said that I agree that a translation could be influenced by doctrinal bias? And I have said that the chief example so accused is the JW's NWT!

i think u shuld move on! U wouldnt wanna get stuck here would u?

Enigma: ^^^ I thought you had taken a "bow".

Well, I have taken a "bow" now.

Meanwhile your shift towards a discussion of the Trinity is for other threads, I'm afraid.

So I regard this post as an encore and I take a bow again.

u better lift up ya head oh! U guy didn't even start on the criteria.

truthislight:

i belief that i have stated my stance clearly enough and i also belief that AIO is of age to speak for himself.



but you know that the words of this institution church fathers carry more weight than the bible?

If i am wrong i stand corrected.

My point is that some people follow the bible with "a revelation" of their own that they feel is correct.

yeah u gat d bolded wrong!

Ubenedictus: yeah u gat d bolded wrong!

but this ^^^ are your words.

If chukwudi44 should arrive here he will tell you that solar scriturs as he calls them are rubbish and cannot be taken alone.

Then he will bambuss you with tradition. Lol.

Its not really true as you put it.

Lasinoh: The major disconnection between the OT and NT.
Irreconciliable!

it is the OT prophesies that made the NT.

"Keep on asking"

E b like say sum1 don f.uck up, wu get that hidden post?

truthislight:

but this ^^^ are your words.

If chukwudi44 should arrive here he will tell you that solar scriturs as he calls them are rubbish and cannot be taken alone.

Then he will bambuss you with tradition. Lol.

Its not really true as you put it.

ofcuz chukwudi and even me dont believe solo and sola scriptural, infact i hold it is unbiblical. But that doesn't mean the scripture don't take the paramont place in doctrine, no church father pulls more weight than scripture. And i still hold that if ya wish to know d meaning of what d apostles taught ask those they taught who kept, guarded and transmitted da truth.

Not intending to re-open or engage in any (further) debate; I just think the post below made elsewhere should also really be here in relation to the points about translation of 'logos' as 'Word'.

https://www.nairaland.com/1127181/jesus-christ-servant-god-trinity/1#13346320

From the Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes; using Lightfoot translation; other English translations similarly use 'the Word')

CHAPTER 11
11:1 Mine are no strange discourses nor perverse questionings, but having been a disciple of Apostles I come forward as a teacher of the Gentiles, ministering worthily to them, as they present themselves disciples of the truth, the lessons which have been handed down.
11:2 For who that has been rightly taught and has entered into friendship with the Word does not seek to learn distinctly the lessons revealed openly by the Word to the disciples; to whom the Word appeared and declared them, speaking plainly, not perceived by the unbelieving, but relating them to disciples who being reckoned faithful by Him were taught the mysteries of the Father?
11:3 For which cause He sent forth the Word, that He might appear unto the world, Who being dishonoured by the people, and preached by the Apostles, was believed in by the Gentiles.
11:4 This Word, Who was from the beginning, Who appeared as new and yet was proved to be old, and is engendered always young in the hearts of saints,
11:5 He, I say, Who is eternal, Who to-day was accounted a Son, through Whom the Church is enriched and grace is unfolded and multiplied among the saints, grace which confers understanding, which reveals mysteries, which announces seasons, which rejoices over the faithful, which is bestowed upon those who seek her, even those by whom the pledges of faith are not broken, nor the boundaries of the fathers overstepped.
11:6 Whereupon the fear of the law is sung, and the grace of the prophets is recognised, and the faith of
the gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the joy of the Church exults.
11:7 If thou grieve not this grace, thou shalt understand the discourses which the Word holds by the mouth of those whom He desires when He wishes.
11:8 For in all things, that by the will of the commanding Word we were moved to utter with much pains, we become sharers with you, through love of the things revealed unto us.

Enigma: Not intending to re-open or engage in any (further) debate; I just think the post below made elsewhere should also really be here in relation to the points about translation of 'logos' as 'Word'.

https://www.nairaland.com/1127181/jesus-christ-servant-god-trinity/1#13346320

From the Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes; using Lightfoot translation; other English translations similarly use 'the Word')

be careful here! I believe d above letter was written in greek, so d "word" u see there is just d translation of d greek "logos"

Ubenedictus: be careful here! I believe d above letter was written in greek, so d "word" u see there is just d translation of d greek "logos"

I believe there are 2 parts to this thread of 'The worst bible Translation' at the moment.

There is the matter of how Logos is to be rendered in English.

Then there is the matter of whether it is valid to render John 1:1 and the Logos was 'a god' as opposed to the Logos was God.

The age of the debate about Coptic translations has no bearing on the validity of it. You can't say it's an old matter so it is not pertinent. It is like in school in 9ja, you see a guy with a book he stole. You ask him where he got the book. He answers,' I've had it a long time'. Who asked him how long he's had it? What was asked was where he got it?

The Copts being trinitarians has nothing to do with the validity of the translation. I myself believe in the Trinity (beyond stating that it is not something that I want to go into on NL). That does not contradict the rendering of the word as 'a god'.

I'm sniping these days on NL cos of time. I'll have to come back and fill in my argument later.

Pastor AIO:

I believe there are 2 parts to this thread of 'The worst bible Translation' at the moment.

There is the matter of how Logos is to be rendered in English.

Then there is the matter of whether it is valid to render John 1:1 and the Logos was 'a god' as opposed to the Logos was God.

The age of the debate about Coptic translations has no bearing on the validity of it. You can't say it's an old matter so it is not pertinent. It is like in school in 9ja, you see a guy with a book he stole. You ask him where he got the book. He answers,' I've had it a long time'. Who asked him how long he's had it? What was asked was where he got it?

The Copts being trinitarians has nothing to do with the validity of the translation. I myself believe in the Trinity (beyond stating that it is not something that I want to go into on NL). That does not contradict the rendering of the word as 'a god'.

I'm sniping these days on NL cos of time. I'll have to come back and fill in my argument later.

mayb wen u are chanced u can go into d criteria of interpretation!

Ubenedictus: mayb wen u are chanced u can go into d criteria of interpretation!

I think it would be worth our while to consider what is meant by a god. When John says The Logos was (a) God, is it a statement of identity or a statement of quality. For instance, if we are looking for a thief and I say that Michael is The thief that would Identify him as the thief we're looking for. If I say Michael is a thief that tells us about Michael, but it doesn't identify him as the particular thief we're looking for.

Yet saying that the Logos is a god, ie saying it has divine attributes can mean nothing to us if we do not know what we mean by Divine. It is common to throw around phrases in a superficial way that when we are asked what we mean by those phrases we can only respond with 'hmmm . . . haaaahh'. That is why I open threads like this:
https://www.nairaland.com/514524/what-god

Then I've also tried to ask questions about the problem of Identity. When can something be said to be identical with something else (yes, an oxymoron but you still get what I mean)?

If one thing is greater than another in some capacity or the other can they be said to be identical. If Jesus says that the Father is greater than I what does that suggest about their shared identity. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the same as God in essence but is a different Person from God the Father?

If I get a textile and make a buba and a sokoto from the textile can I say that the buba is the sokoto simply because they were cut from the same cloth?

Pastor AIO:

I think it would be worth our while to consider what is meant by a god. When John says The Logos was (a) God, is it a statement of identity or a statement of quality. For instance, if we are looking for a thief and I say that Michael is The thief that would Identify him as the thief we're looking for. If I say Michael is a thief that tells us about Michael, but it doesn't identify him as the particular thief we're looking for.

Yet saying that the Logos is a god, ie saying it has divine attributes can mean nothing to us if we do not know what we mean by Divine. It is common to throw around phrases in a superficial way that when we are asked what we mean by those phrases we can only respond with 'hmmm . . . haaaahh'. That is why I open threads like this:
https://www.nairaland.com/514524/what-god

Then I've also tried to ask questions about the problem of Identity. When can something be said to be identical with something else (yes, an oxymoron but you still get what I mean)?

If one thing is greater than another in some capacity or the other can they be said to be identical. If Jesus says that the Father is greater than I what does that suggest about their shared identity. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the same as God in essence but is a different Person from God the Father?

If I get a textile and make a buba and a sokoto from the textile can I say that the buba is the sokoto simply because they were cut from the same cloth?

certain questions just begged to be ask.

truthislight:

certain questions just begged to be ask.

. . . like where is the proof of the wayo by those who translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God"?

Ubenedictus: be careful here! I believe d above letter was written in greek, so d "word" u see there is just d translation of d greek "logos"

You see am! Of course this was a point I made in about my second or third post.

This matter is very simple: those shouting that the translation "the Word was God" is because of some alleged wayo have to show us proof of the wayo!

So far they have shown no proof whatsoever! They will have to show inter alia:

- that the apostle John meant something different from "the Word was God";
- that people working with the Greek text before any translation (especially into English) understood something different from "the Word was God";
- when the "institution" that did the wayo did it and how;
- that the translation "the Word was God" is not legitimate;
- which translation to Latin was because of wayo and when was it done etc etc.

Otherwise, it is quite perverse to comment after italo's post that the JW's interpretation "the Word was a god" is legitimate but the traditional interpretation "the Word was God" is because of some wayo alleged to have started even with Latin translation(s).

How does the rendering of Logos as 'Word' convey our understanding of what the Logos is?

How would 'Mouth' fail to render it as 'Word' does?

What exactly does Logos mean to us? Is it the same meaning as Heraclitus intended? What about Philo, is it the same meaning as Philo's Logos?

First we need to know just what we understand by Logos before we start to consider which english words best render it.

Pastor AIO:

I think it would be worth our while to consider what is meant by a god. When John says The Logos was (a) God, is it a statement of identity or a statement of quality. For instance, if we are looking for a thief and I say that Michael is The thief that would Identify him as the thief we're looking for. If I say Michael is a thief that tells us about Michael, but it doesn't identify him as the particular thief we're looking for.

Yet saying that the Logos is a god, ie saying it has divine attributes can mean nothing to us if we do not know what we mean by Divine. It is common to throw around phrases in a superficial way that when we are asked what we mean by those phrases we can only respond with 'hmmm . . . haaaahh'. That is why I open threads like this:
https://www.nairaland.com/514524/what-god

Then I've also tried to ask questions about the problem of Identity. When can something be said to be identical with something else (yes, an oxymoron but you still get what I mean)?

If one thing is greater than another in some capacity or the other can they be said to be identical. If Jesus says that the Father is greater than I what does that suggest about their shared identity. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the same as God in essence but is a different Person from God the Father?

If I get a textile and make a buba and a sokoto from the textile can I say that the buba is the sokoto simply because they were cut from the same cloth?

this arguement has a trinitarian line and i doubt truthislight will d open to discuss d topic, dat is y i was trying to find d literally arguement instead of d "wat does it mean" arguement.

Pastor AIO: How does the rendering of Logos as 'Word' convey our understanding of what the Logos is?

How would 'Mouth' fail to render it as 'Word' does?

What exactly does Logos mean to us? Is it the same meaning as Heraclitus intended? What about Philo, is it the same meaning as Philo's Logos?

First we need to know just what we understand by Logos before we start to consider which english words best render it.

we cant cant deny dat d concept of "logos" seem to have been borrowed and upgraded from greek philosophy, it seems, under d inspiration of d holy spirit st john particularly chose d word dat to xplain a xtian concept to d greek. It take some study to learn d traditional greek thought on "logos", but everytime d works come up "mouth" does seem to be very inappriopriate.

Ubenedictus: we cant cant deny dat d concept of "logos" seem to have been borrowed and upgraded from greek philosophy, it seems, under d inspiration of d holy spirit st john particularly chose d word dat to xplain a xtian concept to d greek. It take some study to learn d traditional greek thought on "logos", but everytime d works come up "mouth" does seem to be very inappriopriate.

Thank you for your response, Ubenedictus. I find that matter very problematic because I've just returned from nigeria where I conducted a little survey. I went around asking people what they understood by the term 'Logos'. The answers were varied. I got, ' the logos just means Jesus' on one hand. On the other, and this is very interesting, I got 'the Logos is the WRITTEN WORD while Rhema is the spoken word'. I had determined that I would only ask the one question. So I didn't go into the matter of if Logos is the written word then when the world was made through the logos and if the logos became flesh then does that mean that the written word (presumably the bible) is Jesus and the world was created by the written word.

The notion of Logos being the written word is so widespread, I've even encountered it somewhere here on NL in the past. The implication which most recoil from and only few are brave enough to voice out is 'does that mean that Jesus is the bible'?

I personally would prefer that the translations of the bible left the technical word 'logos' as it is. Why? so when people read 'in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the Logos was god they are forced to ask, 'What is meant by Logos'? This line of questioning will then open up a discussion on an issue that I find essential, nay the very core of christianity.

I maintain that translation of the word Logos to 'Word' does not convey anything to the reader. Nothing more than 'Mouth' would or 'Story' would. At least Mouth or Story would still leave the reader scratching their heads and force them to ask 'what is meant by that?'.

Ubenedictus: we cant cant deny dat d concept of "logos" seem to have been borrowed and upgraded from greek philosophy, it seems, under d inspiration of d holy spirit st john particularly chose d word dat to xplain a xtian concept to d greek. It take some study to learn d traditional greek thought on "logos", but everytime d works come up "mouth" does seem to be very inappriopriate.

He he he.
Always the last last resort, eh?.
Ubenedictus pulls out the trump card .
The holy spirit did it or inspired it. Once those words are uttered, end of story.
Who can debate with that?
Final reference to a supernatural enabler always seals the deal.

Well done ubenedictus.

A big omission in my posts: I said that doctrinal biases influence translations. I forgot to add another and heftier point and that is that Translations have a massive influence on Doctrines. It is a two way street.


P.S (23/1/13): So sometimes even the most innocent translations might be found to have a great though unintended effect on subsequent doctrines.

Ubenedictus: we cant cant deny dat d concept of "logos" seem to have been borrowed and upgraded from greek philosophy, it seems, under d inspiration of d holy spirit st john particularly chose d word dat to xplain a xtian concept to d greek.

to which greek? Was the bible written with greek ideology or Jewish?

"You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know: salvation originate with the Jews. " (John 4:22). (Jesus words)
.................

Why then will John have to explain Greek philosophy when he is under the inspiration of the holy spirit?

Was it that the Greeks already have the truth and yahweh only wanted to key into it?

If the Greeks already have the truth, what exactly then do you want the gospel to preach to them that is new to attract them to christ?

Why even the gospel if the greek philosophy is what the holy spirit wanted to help John to key into? Any need for the gospel? (Afteral the greek had it right already)

the truth is that those that were already influence by greek philosophy twisted the words of John to suit their indoctrinated greek notion which was not what John was saying and ended up creating the confusion we have today in christianity.

Dont even go the side you are trying to go because the apostles already gave the warning that when the apostles died off, men will come in and adultrate the truth.

Even Jesus talked about the "weed and the weath" , the weed planted by an enemy.

Well, take note, Jesus said that they should grow together that angels will do the separation at the end.

Pastor AIO: A big omission in my posts: I said that doctrinal biases influence translations. I forgot to add another and heftier point and that is that Translations have a massive influence on Doctrines. It is a two way street.

you are absolutely correct there ^^^.

I knew these questions were coming, they only came a bit late.

truthislight:
to which greek? Was the bible written with greek ideology or Jewish?

"You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know: salvation originate with the Jews. " (John 4:22). (Jesus words)
.................
Why then will John have to explain Greek philosophy when he is under the inspiration of the holy spirit?

because john is writting with a greek audience in mind. He wrote in greek not aramic.

Was it that the Greeks already have the truth and yahweh only wanted to key into it?

u see ur problem? D greeks had a system of philosophy, dat doesnt mean they had d truth, it simply means they have ideas and that concepts dat one may use to reach d audience. Paul said d unknown God is d pagan shrine was his God, does dat mean d pagans had d truth? No, instead he was using their concept to xplain a truth.

If the Greeks already have the truth, what exactly then do you want the gospel to preach to them that is new to attract them to christ?

ignoratio elenchi, i never said d greeks had d truth! Nor did i say d knew it all

Why even the gospel if the greek philosophy is what the holy spirit wanted to help John to key into? Any need for the gospel? (Afteral the greek had it right already)

this is like asking y d epistle of paul if d holyspirit was help paul key into d unknown God. Ur question lacks purpose.

the truth is that those that were already influence by greek philosophy twisted the words of John to suit their indoctrinated greek notion which was not what John was saying and ended up creating the confusion we have today in christianity.

hahahaha, did u notice dat d concept of logos is foreign to d jews? He could only get dat concept frm 1 place and dats from d greeks, nobody is indoctrinating anything, d idea is clear enough.

Dont even go the side you are trying to go because the apostles already gave the warning that when the apostles died off, men will come in and adultrate the truth.
Even Jesus talked about the "weed and the weath" , the weed planted by an enemy.
Well, take note, Jesus said that they should grow together that angels will do the separation at the end.

the apostle john simply preached in a language dat was understandable to his audience, d greeks! The concept of logos is a greek concept it is totally foreign to d jew, wen John used it he simply upgraded d concept and used it to xplain a cucial point of doctrine. Paul did d same, he preached in a pagan town dat d unknown God in their shrine is d true God whom he came to preach abt, dat doesnt mean d pagans has d fulness of truth, it mean dat even in their corupted minds they still search for that which is true and at times they found some truth mixed with error, d work of d apostle is d remove d error a teach d truth dat is what john did.