Emusan:


Very cheap excuse.



And what they were explaining is still the same.



At this point is when I gave up on you and shows that I've been discussing with a pupil.

You're a chronicle liar.

This is ERV of John 1:1 "Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I've posted this same verse more than three times, yet you can speed that nonsense up.



You already agreed that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

So what is your point and explanation about John 1:1-2?

The point is that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the beginning of the creation of the heavens and earth. John 1:1 is referring to the Original or 'Very' beginning that refers to God's first creative act. John 1:1 state that Jesus 'was' in the beginning, not before It. verse 2 also shows that it was in that same beginning as verse 1 not before it, that Jesus was with God.
So your Erv is not consistent with other translations.

Michael547:
The point is that Genesis 1:1 is referring to the beginning of the creation of the heavens and earth. John 1:1 is referring to the Original or 'Very' beginning that refers to God's first creative act.

Smile...

After you already stated clearly that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

I know you added "ORIGINAL OR VERY" to make it sounds like it's not TWO BEGINNINGS but it's very obvious that you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Sorry, it can't work that way.

There can't be TWO BEGINNINGS as you rightly said.

John 1:1 state that Jesus 'was' in the beginning, not before It.

That's pure lie.

You can see you're the very one doing what you accused me of that time.

You're rewritten God's word.

No translation ever says Jesus "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING in verse one.

verse 2 also shows that it was in that same beginning as verse 1 not before it, that Jesus was with God.

You keep repeating this when I never said Verse 2 says anything BEFORE the beginning.

So, why the manipulation?

So your Erv is not consistent with other translations.

It's consistent because the point John made in that chapter from verse 1 is that The Word is not part of CREATION.

That is why, the phrase like
"In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before the mountains were brought fought" denote ETERNITY.

ERV isn't the only translation that did that.

Emusan:


Smile...

After you already stated clearly that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

I know you added "ORIGINAL OR VERY" to make it sounds like it's not TWO BEGINNINGS but it's very obvious that you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Sorry, it can't work that way.

There can't be TWO BEGINNINGS as you rightly said.



That's pure lie.

You can see you're the very one doing what you accused me of that time.

You're rewritten God's word.

No translation ever says Jesus "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING in verse one.



You keep repeating this when I never said Verse 2 says anything BEFORE the beginning.

So, why the manipulation?



It's consistent because the point John made in that chapter from verse 1 is that The Word is not part of CREATION.

That is why, the phrase like
"In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before the mountains were brought fought" denote ETERNITY.

ERV isn't the only translation that did that.

Lol...so if I say, in the beginning was Emusan, do i mean you were before the beginning or you were at the beginning? Which one?
Look at the translations below

Emusan:


Smile...

After you already stated clearly that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

I know you added "ORIGINAL OR VERY" to make it sounds like it's not TWO BEGINNINGS but it's very obvious that you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Sorry, it can't work that way.

There can't be TWO BEGINNINGS as you rightly said.



That's pure lie.

You can see you're the very one doing what you accused me of that time.

You're rewritten God's word.

No translation ever says Jesus "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING in verse one.

Emusan post=128477259:


Smile...

After you already stated clearly that there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS.

I know you added "ORIGINAL OR VERY" to make it sounds like it's not TWO BEGINNINGS but it's very obvious that you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Sorry, it can't work that way.

There can't be TWO BEGINNINGS as you rightly said.



That's pure lie.

You can see you're the very one doing what you accused me of that time.

You're rewritten God's word.

No translation ever says Jesus "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING in verse one.



You keep repeating this when I never said Verse 2 says anything BEFORE the beginning.

So, why the manipulation?



It's consistent because the point John made in that chapter from verse 1 is that The Word is not part of CREATION.

That is why, the phrase like
"In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before the mountains were brought fought" denote ETERNITY.

ERV isn't the only translation that did that.

You keep repeating this when I never said Verse 2 says anything BEFORE the beginning.

So, why the manipulation?



It's consistent because the point John made in that chapter from verse 1 is that The Word is not part of CREATION.

That is why, the phrase like
"In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before the mountains were brought fought" denote ETERNITY.

ERV isn't the only translation that did that.

Below are four translations that says in the beginning 'was' the word. Not 'before' the beginning was the word

Michael547:

Below are four translations that says in the beginning 'was' the word. Not 'before' the beginning was the word

Go an learn simple English

You're not ripe for this discussion.

Teaching you like a pupil is the height of it.

Michael547:

Lol...so if I say, in the beginning was Emusan, do i mean you were before the beginning or you were at the beginning? Which one?
Look at the translations below

What is the usage of past tense verb "WAS" in that sentence?

Man, just go back to primary school for elementary English.

Emusan:


What is the usage of past tense verb "WAS" in that sentence?

Man, just go back to primary school for elementary English.

So are you saying 'in the beginning was the word' in verse 1 means that Jesus was before the beginning?
Oga think na.
Another way to make that statement is 'The word was in the beginning'. How does the two statements prove that 'Jesus was before the beginning' in verse 1.

Emusan:


Go an learn simple English

You're not ripe for this discussion.

Teaching you like a pupil is the height of it.

😁😁😁.....oga after I don give you evidence you don dey say make I go Learn English wey you sef dey find hard to comprehend.

Emusan:


What is the usage of past tense verb "WAS" in that sentence?

Man, just go back to primary school for elementary English.

The past tense verb 'Was' is used by John to simply describe what happened in the past, which is 'the beginning'. So I don't get where you saw John saying that Jesus was 'before the beginning' in which he was talking about in verse 1.

Michael547:

So are you saying 'in the beginning was the word' in verse 1 means that Jesus was before the beginning?

Yes!

And I back it up with a TRANSLATION.

Oga think na.

Do you think as well?

Another way to make that statement is 'The word was in the beginning'. How does the two statements prove that 'Jesus was before the beginning' in verse 1.

Stop twisting the scripture.

You already said there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS

So discussing with you further is a waste of one's precious time.

Michael547:

😁😁😁.....oga after I don give you evidence you don dey say make I go Learn English wey you sef dey find hard to comprehend.

Which evidence?

You need to go back to elementary school to learn simple tenses.

Michael547:

The past tense verb 'Was' is used by John to simply describe what happened in the past, which is 'the beginning'. So I don't get where you saw John saying that Jesus was 'before the beginning' in which he was talking about in verse 1.

The inspired writer said:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god".

Please what is the point of emphasis on the beginning when the writer is just talking about two separate individuals?
Is it that both just appeared at a point in time or one came into the scene at the time when creation started? Proverbs 8:22

Emusan:


Yes!

And I back it up with a TRANSLATION.



Do you think as well?



Stop twisting the scripture.

You already said there can't be TWO BEGINNINGS

So discussing with you further is a waste of one's precious time.

Oga which translation did you use to back it up.....the one that is confusing you?
You are arguing that the 'beginning' in John 1:1 is the same beginning in Genesis 1:1.
So are you saying that the heavens and the earth were the first thing that God created? If yes, explain the bible verses below.
Is the heavens and earth both the 'beginning of the creation of God' and the 'firstborn of all creation' in REV 3:14 and Col 1:15?

Michael547:

Oga which translation did you use to back it up.....

I provided it yesterday, or you want to deny you didn't see it.

the one that is confusing you? me

Fixed

You are arguing that the 'beginning' in John 1:1 is the same beginning in Genesis 1:1.

Yes! because there's ONE BEGINNING as we can't have TWO BEGINNINGS which you also agreed with.

So are you saying that the heavens and the earth were the first thing that God created?

That is what God's Word says not me.

"In the BEGINNING, God created the Heavens and the Earth" Gen 1:1

If yes, explain the bible verses below.
Is the heavens and earth both the 'beginning of the creation of God' and the 'firstborn of all creation' in REV 3:14 and Col 1:15?

Both Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15 are talking about SOURCE OF CREATION and SUPREMACY OF CHRIST OVER CREATION not that Jesus was CREATED. According to Greek word USED in those verses.

Scripture is very clear that.

John 1:3 "ALL THINGS were created by HIM(Jesus) and without Him(Jesus) NOT EVEN ONE THING that was created"

"ALL THINGS came into existence through him,+ and apart from him NOT EVEN ONE THING came into existence." - NWT

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"

If you want to swallow your vomit that there can be TWO BEGINNINGS then come open.

Emusan:


I provided it yesterday, or you want to deny you didn't see it.



Fixed



Yes! because there's ONE BEGINNING as we can't have TWO BEGINNINGS which you also agreed with.



That is what God's Word says not me.

"In the BEGINNING, God created the Heavens and the Earth" Gen 1:1



Both Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15 are talking about SOURCE OF CREATION and SUPREMACY OF CHRIST OVER CREATION not that Jesus was CREATED. According to Greek word USED in those verses.

Scripture is very clear that.

John 1:3 "ALL THINGS were created by HIM(Jesus) and without Him(Jesus) NOT EVEN ONE THING that was created"

"ALL THINGS came into existence through him,+ and apart from him NOT EVEN ONE THING came into existence." - NWT

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"

If you want to swallow your vomit that there can be TWO BEGINNINGS then come open.

Was it also in the beginning of the heavens and earth that 'Jesus was with God' according to verse 2 of your translation?
What does 'firstborn son' mean according to your CEV Translation below?

Michael547:

Was it also in the beginning of the heavens and earth that 'Jesus was with God' according to verse 2 of your translation?
What does 'firstborn son' mean according to your CEV Translation below?

If you have any question apart from this one, let me know!

Emusan:


If you have any question apart from this one, let me know!

Oga why does your CEV Translation call Jesus 'firstborn son' before saying 'Superior'?
What does firstborn son mean.
Or should we ignore 'firstborn son' because it does not appear in greek?😁

Michael547:

Oga why does your CEV Translation call Jesus 'firstborn son' before saying 'Superior'?
What does firstborn son mean.
Or should we ignore 'firstborn son' because it does not appear in greek?😁

I've answered that question come with another.

[quote author=Emusan post=128488192]

I've answered that question come with another. [/Greek?
Lol😁😁😁....Oga you have not answered oo....you claim that the original Greek talks about just supremacy but does not talk about Jesus being the first creation.
So please what does the 'firstborn son' in your CEV Translation mean?

Emusan:


I've answered that question come with another.

Lol😁😁😁....Oga you have not answered oo....you claim that the original Greek talks about just supremacy but does not talk about Jesus being the first creation.
So please what does the 'firstborn son' in your CEV Translation mean?

Michael547:
Oga you have not answered oo....you claim that the original Greek talks about just supremacy but does not talk about Jesus being the first creation.
So please what does the 'firstborn son' in your CEV Translation mean?

To have low IQ is truly a disease.

According to you "you claim that original Greek talks about just SUPREMACY but not talk about Jesus being the first creation" and you went further to ask again what does the term FIRSTBORN SON mean?

Absolutely, just leave this discussion and enroll for elementary school.

Emusan:


To have low IQ is truly a disease.

According to you "you claim that original Greek talks about just SUPREMACY but not talk about Jesus being the first creation" and you went further to ask again what does the term FIRSTBORN SON mean?

Absolutely, just leave this discussion and enroll for elementary school.

😁😁😁....you think you were wise by bringing Translations that omitted the word 'firstborn son' just to prove your point. But unfortunately your CEV Translation convinced you that Jesus is not only Supreme, but also the firstborn of creation.
But you could not dodge it because you caught yourself 😁😁. Oga you need the school more.

Michael547:

😁😁😁....you think you were wise by bringing Translations that omitted the word 'firstborn son' just to prove your point. But unfortunately your CEV Translation convinced you that Jesus is not only Supreme, but also the firstborn of creation.
But you could not dodge it because you caught yourself 😁😁. Oga you need the school more.

You're a really olodo....only if you understand that.

You want me to tutor you like a primary school pupil, let me help you with that.

The meaning of term FIRSTBORN is what CEV actually emphasize on the last part of the translation "...superior to all creation."

That's why you won't find other translations used the term 'FIRSTBORN' since the meaning was used.

Very pathetic.

I've being answering your questions since now it's my turn.

When the scripture says "Jesus is the 'FIRSTBORN' from the dead" Colo 1:18 does it mean Jesus was the first to be CREATED from resurrection?

Note: the term in contention here is the "FIRSTBORN"

Emusan:


You're a really olodo....only if you understand that.

You want me to tutor you like a primary school pupil, let me help you with that.

The meaning of term FIRSTBORN is what CEV actually emphasize on the last part of the translation "...superior to all creation."

That's why you won't find other translations used the term 'FIRSTBORN' since the meaning was used.

Very pathetic.

I've being answering your questions since now it's my turn.

When the scripture says "Jesus is the 'FIRSTBORN' from the dead" Colo 1:18 does it mean Jesus was the first to be CREATED from resurrection?

Note: the term in contention here is the "FIRSTBORN"

Oga stop twisting scriptures. Why did you not use the earlier translations i gave you to explain?
You went to bring scriptures that omitted firstborn.
Can we also say that The Almighty God who Jesus was with in John 1:1,2 is also a firstborn?

Michael547:
Oga stop twisting scriptures. Why did you not use the earlier translations i gave you to explain?

The other translation used the translation of the Greek word that appear in that verse not the meaning

The Greek word is 'Prototokos'

You see the reason why you need to enroll for elementary school.

You went to bring scriptures that omitted firstborn.

O ma se oooo

Can we also say that The Almighty God who Jesus was with in John 1:1,2 is also a firstborn?

Where is the answer to my question?

Emusan:


You're a really olodo....only if you understand that.

You want me to tutor you like a primary school pupil, let me help you with that.

The meaning of term FIRSTBORN is what CEV actually emphasize on the last part of the translation "...superior to all creation."

That's why you won't find other translations used the term 'FIRSTBORN' since the meaning was used.

Very pathetic.

I've being answering your questions since now it's my turn.

When the scripture says "Jesus is the 'FIRSTBORN' from the dead" Colo 1:18 does it mean Jesus was the first to be CREATED from resurrection?

Note: the term in contention here is the "FIRSTBORN"

col 1:18 says that Jesus was the FIRSTBORN from the dead, meaning that he was the first one to be raised from the dead.
Now Your CEV Translation says that Jesus was not only the superior but also the firstborn son in respect to all creation. So how do you want to argue that Jesus was not the first person to be created?
Now can we also apply the word FIRSTBORN SON Or FIRSTBORN from the dead, in Col 1:18 and Col 1:15 to The God that Jesus was with in John 1:1,2?

Michael547:

So if it was in the beginning of the creation that Jesus was with God as explained in verse 2, why was Jesus not with God before the creation of heaven and earth?

Oga Jesus was with God before the creation of heaven and earth.
Read again Jesus was with God in the beginning not created in the beginning anyone that was not created in the beginning was not created at all.
Creation was made in the beginning, all angels, man and animals even marriage was created in the beginning, the beginning is the whole period when things were created but for the word he already was at that beginning he was not created.

Michael547:

col 1:18 says that Jesus was the FIRSTBORN from the dead, meaning that he was the first one to be raised from the dead.
Now Your CEV Translation says that Jesus was not only the superior but also the firstborn son in respect to all creation. So how do you want to argue that Jesus was not the first person to be created?
Now can we also apply the word FIRSTBORN SON Or FIRSTBORN from the dead, in Col 1:18 and Col 1:15 to The God that Jesus was with in John 1:1,2?

Actually Jesus is not the first to rise from the dead.
Firstborn from the dead is different from firstborn over all creation.
David was called the firstborn of the kings of the earth it does not mean David was the first king does it?

Steep:
Actually Jesus is not the first to rise from the dead.
Firstborn from the dead is different from firstborn over all creation.
David was called the firstborn of the kings of the earth it does not mean David was the first king does it?

What does firstborn from the dead mean in col 1:18?
And what does firstborn over all creation mean in col 1:15?

Steep:

Oga Jesus was with God before the creation of heaven and earth.
Read again Jesus was with God in the beginning not created in the beginning anyone that was not created in the beginning was not created at all.
Creation was made in the beginning, all angels, man and animals even marriage was created in the beginning, the beginning is the whole period when things were created but for the word he already was at that beginning he was not created.

So what does in the beginning when Jesus was with God refer to? Was John implying that God and Jesus had a beginning? OR That Jesus was not with God before the beginning?

MightySparrow:


Hello my brother. I have been checking to see MaximumSide's contribution. He seems to be more informed than his brethren in delusion here.

Christ is a mystery.Colosians 2:2. I salute all the people that have contributed of meaningfully to this topic. I am still waiting for MaximumSide and I have few questions to ask.

I may then make my contribution.
You are doing well and I salute you all.

See this one
Came to ruin everything by saying Christ is a mystery
Bwahahahahaha
What will you understand or benefit from someone cloaking as a mystery?

Is MaxInDHouse your Papa that you should wait for his contribution?

Michael547:

So are you saying 'in the beginning was the word' in verse 1 means that Jesus was before the beginning?
Oga think na.
Another way to make that statement is 'The word was in the beginning'. How does the two statements prove that 'Jesus was before the beginning' in verse 1.

Abeg, help him understand proper English