₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: @italo

Don't even expect to have a honest argument wit this folks especially this enigma of a guy.He can continue to live in self delusion

I gave up arguing wit him about 2 months ago when wr argued whether st Augustine beleived in papal supremacy.The dude is very crafty and mischievious.To think I once held him in high esteem to even vote him into poster of the year 2 years ago

You are creating unnecessary enmity and you are behaving like a child. Do you notice that since these issues about whether the Roman Catholic Church "gave us the Bible" (or is the only church etc) started you have thrown several insults (some particularly bad) at me and I chose not to repay you? Initially, I even tried to turn some of them into jokes hoping that you will calm down and see sense but it just became worse.

Well, my approach here has never been particularly to make friends. So, if you choose to keep on your current path I will not dissuade you. I can only pray that one day you will come to understand and realise the kind of motive, logic and philosophy that necessitate challenging the falsehoods being spread about the contribution of the Roman Catholic Church.

What is more, I will pray that your eyes, heart and mind become open to see that your commitment should be to Christ rather than to any particular organisation.

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).

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"?

italo: @ Enigma,

The Catholic Church is not a "denomination" of the Church. It is the one true Church that was founded by Christ.

@ italo

The Roman Catholic Church (aka 'The Catholic Church') is just another denomination; it is not the Church or "the one true Church" founded by Christ.

The real one true Church founded by Christ is the Church of Christ aka the Christian Church aka the universal Church aka the catholic Church.


The real one true Church founded by Christ which is the catholic Church has members in the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, the Evangelical Church the Pentecostal Church etc etc and even includes people who do not belong to any denomination.


The real one true Church founded by Christ is even found where just two or three are gathered in Jesus' name.

sylve11: . . . . as for who came 1st or 2nd is non of ma business, my only question is ' what is happening to Christianity as a body' or religion? *sad*

I think this is one of the most sensible points in all the posts/threads dealing with "my denomination or my abomination is better than yours."

Jesus Christ established "The Church". He did not establish The Roman Catholic Church (aka 'The Catholic Church'); or the Pentecostal Church, or the Anglican church, or the Baptist Church; or the Methodist Church; or "Power Must Change Hands Ministry", or "Koboko Ministry".

Part of the answer to your question what is hapening to Christianity as a body is the consequence of this insane denominationalism; just as 'tribalism' and 'ethnicism' are dragging Nigeria down, denominationalism is having a corrupting and corroding effect on what Christianity is supposed to be.

In the earliest days, the Church did not have any of these denominational adjectives; instead the Church was simply identified where a particular branch of the one Church met: e.g. the Church at Ephesus, the Church at Antioch, the Church in Rome, 'the Church that meets in your home' etc.

When Ignatius, who was not a Roman Catholic, coined the expression "catholic", he did not mean it as a denomination at all. He was trying to highlight the oneness of the Church; and he meant by catholic essentially universal. It is a pity that Roman Catholics reject this original meaning of catholic; that they dissociate themselves from the catholic Church, which is the universal Church, in order to advance their very very sad denominationalism!

It is true that about 200-250 years after Ignatius coined the word catholic with its original meaning, a particular appropriation of the word took place particularly in the time of Theodosius (and Damasus); even that does not compare with the misuse of the word today.

As for the other denominations (other than Roman Catholic), each has its own problems including shortcomings on both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So no one is perfect. It may appear paradoxical that the Church in its different faces or denominations has all these problems. Yet we need to bear a number of things in mind: the warnings from Jesus Himself and from the apostles that wolves etc will come into and be inside the Church! Second, even as for Christians who are trying to do right, there is one thing we must remember: one can only do it if one constantly submits to the Holy Spirit. I think this is where we miss it and this is a very significant cause of all these our difficulties.

As for the private jet people, many of the leaders practising and teaching these things may not even be Christians at all; or at best, what they are practising is not Christianity even if they are honest but genuinely mistaken. Unfortunately, their followers are too blinded by bling, desire or even greed to be concerned to pay attention to the not very hard to understand teachings of Jesus and the apostles on subjects like that. I don't think anyone who reads, understands and tries to be guided by 1 Timothy 6 will have difficulties seeing the private jet fad for the worldy nonsense that it all is.

Zikkyy01: Lol! Bros I never experience this kind thing before. Don't know how it works. Anyways am sure its because my tithe is outstanding. It will resolved as soon as I remit my tithe.

Ah Oga Zikky, I see say you don get your proper mojo back. E go be the spambot - dem don even give am one kind name like that sef. The thing been catch me too on one occasion like that.

Enuwe, keep doing what you're doing.

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.

Various discussions on other threads suggest that it is necessary to make a brief comment on one of the points that this thread originally intended to explain but which was left out in view of how things turned out.

The point is about the fact that there really isn't just one canon of the Bible as many think and as some like to argue wrongly.

Technically, as reflected in the opening posts, different Christian groups actually have their own particular canons though they are all very very similar in that the corpus i.e the bulk of books are usually the same with differences only about whether to include or exclude a very small number of books which could be just one or two or the most well known 7 deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) books that the Roman Catholics retain.

Interestingly, contrary to popular thought the Roman Catholic canon was only finalised in the 16th century (Canon of Trent) which further undermines the false/erroneous claim that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. The credit for "compilation" and for the earliest canons go to the "church fathers" and others ------ most of whom were not Roman Catholics.

This summary below from (and the table that follows it in) Wikipedia gives an idea of the point being made with this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

Canons of various Christian traditions

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[37] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons.

Ah by the way I think i read earlier one of the anti-Trinitarians saying Jesus IS God but He is not The Father.

Well, what the poster does not realise is that he is in fact now agreeing with ---- yep, you guessed right, the Trinitarians!

Following on from this recent thread https://www.nairaland.com/1015610/worst-bible-translation/1#13260634 and in particular the discussion about the translation of 'Logos' as 'Word' in John 1:1, here is something that my Roman Catholic friends might appreciate ---- even though some of them presently consider me an 'enemy'.

Anyhoooooos, 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.

@ Zikky

Wetin happen now? How long dem ban you for?

@ OP

I think it is better to say that Christianity existed long before there was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand, even though the Holy Spirit uniquely descended on Christians first on that day of Pentecost, "Pentecostal Christianity" as we know it today is very very very young and recent indeed.

seriallink: Which of the Churches was Christ referring to in the passage below:

Matthew 16:17-19 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I have observed that most Catholics believe that Jesus was actually referring to them in the passages I quoted above.

I want to know your views on this because most Catholics believe they are the one true Church and other Churches are hell bound. I'm not a Church goer and personally do not believe that going to Church is necessary or compulsory for salvation, but I'd still like to know your views on this!

Thank you.

In that passage, Jesus referred to "my Church". Thus the passage refers to the Church of Jesus Christ, aka the Church of Christ, aka the Christian Church.

The passage does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church particularly; rather it refers to the entire body of Christ, the entirety of Christians, worldwide, wherever, dead or alive, denomination or no denomination.

On another note: to be fair to Roman Catholics, they accept that people from other denominations and even some Moslems etc can be 'saved'. What causes confusion is firstly indeed their claim to be the "only" "church" (which is false of course) but also quite significantly, the misunderstanding of that position by some Roman Catholics and the overstating of that position by some of their own "popes"! Take this example previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via/3#12743656

. . . per "Pope" Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

belabela: Simple answer NO!

The one true church of Jesus Chrit is not in bricks or grandeur or fame. Those who worship the Lord worship him in Spirit and in truth. The head of the one true church is not the Pope but Jesus Christ himself. He is the only high priest not Adeboye or any of the other Nigerian GOs claiming to be high priests. Members of the one true church are scatteed all over the world and interestingly some of them are members of the Roman catholic church. It is not about denomination or location but faith in the Lord Jesus and a life led by the Spirit of God. To belong to a group where Christ is praised does not automatically make you a member of the one true church. When the head of the church (Jesus) returns he will gather all members of the one true church to himself ( raising those who are sleeping (dead) and glorifying all in immortality). Anybody caliming his local denomiantion is the only true church is very ignorant and he/she may not even be a member of the one true church.

This is a very good post. The Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination like every other denomination.

As far as Christians are concerned, what matters is the Church of Christ or the Christian Church. The Church of Christ is catholic. In that sense catholic does not mean "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" as the RCC now tends or likes to call itself.

Instead, the members of the catholic Church can be found in various denominations be it Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Pentecostal etc.

There is a good or at least acceptable and widely accepted description of the catholic Church in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1101186/catholics-really-wants-make-heaven/1#12974341

From http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. {deleted by Enigma because it is inflammatory}.

Also, I once posted a sermon on another thread which explains the Four Marks of The Christian Church i.e. "one, holy, apostolic, catholic". The sermon therefore explains why Anglicans, Baptists and even Pentecostals can say "we believe in one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church".

See https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church

^^^ 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.

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.

^^^ 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!

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.

Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) Jesus Christ [the Son of God], who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, [both of God and of the Virgin … truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin . . .

EDIT See now also this subsequent post elsewhere https://www.nairaland.com/1127181/jesus-christ-servant-god-trinity/1#13346320

truthislight

I think there is some confusion and misunderstanding, so let me try and clear some of them up.

1. I do not claim that you used the exact words that I wrote: my point is that you agreed with another poster that "it is impossible" to have a translation without doctrinal bias. If that remains your position, then you cannot argue that the JW's own NWT is not affected by bias. Simples.

2. I have not said that a translation cannot be affected by bias; I gave you the example of the JW's NWT which is one of the versions most often accused of bias; I also pointed to the debate going on about the trustworthiness of the NIV etc

3. I do not accuse you per se of making the allegation of bias (and if I did so unfairly I apologise). Rather, I have pointed to examples of such allegations on the thread including especially the allegation that the "institution" that "collated" and "translated" the Bible had an "agenda".

4. Yes, I understand your point that you did not make the case about "story" and "mouth"; so it is not an issue primarily for you. Nevertheless, as the NWT translates "logos" as "Word", I think you also need to examine why they chose the word* "Word" (*no pun and all that) and not the alternatives ----- like "story", "mouth" or even for that matter* "matter" etc.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.



Edited

^^^ 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".

Ubenedictus: amen, the early xtians wu believed Jesus is God will translate the word was God, d jw may prefer "d word was god". I think to topic under discussion is the article "a" used by d nwt, hope i got it right, so i think it is time for us to bring the criterias that proves or disproves d article "a".

From an online version of the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT

John 1:1

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

John 1:18

No man has seen God at any time; the only‐begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Revelation 19: 13

and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God.

1. The red bold: why "a god" in John 1:1 and "God" John 1:18 when they are in the same chapter, within a few verses, and using the very same Greek words and construction? And why the second "god" in John 1:18?

2. The blue bold: why is "logos" translated as "the Word" or "The Word" and not "the/The story" or "the/The Mouth"?

Pastor AIO: . . . . As for the rest of the post I will say Thank you for the spite and bitterness. By the grace of God it will all turn to blessing before it reaches me.

This is all I can be bothered with in that post.

Spite and bitterness from me? Keep deceiving yourself!

You forget your following me over quite a number of different threads even when I tried to ignore your bitchiness?

Nah, I don't harbour any spite and bitterness towards you. Remember this that I said on another occasion when you showed your colours, well it still stands: https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/14#11031081

Enigma: . . . . My attitude is simple: 'respect begets respect' and 'deal with each poster according to your reasonable perception of their attitude'.

truthislight: i dont know why you wish to align me befor facing the issue as we have been doing.

I'm sorry you take exception to my phrasing. I'm happy to rephrase the question: do you believe that the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible is also affected by doctrinal bias?

truthislight: To your question.

If the JW had seen it to be consistent with other scriptures that shows that Jesus is completely different from the father may be they would not have shown the difference and maybe, there are other grammatical rules they are following that i that is not an expert will not know.

Here, you are contradicting yourself I'm afraid! You have said just a couple of posts above that no translation can be free of doctrinal bias; you cannot now make an exception for the JWT Bible. It is either that every single Bible version or translation is affected by "doctrinal bias" or you have to retract and/or rephrase your earlier point.

truthislight: Not with Jesus saying that he does not know the day and the how.

Beside, the word was said to be with God.

How can Jesus be with himself in the beginning?

Again, other parts of the scripture said that Jesus does not know the day and the hour.

You are going into arguments about belief in Trinity; this thread is not about that. And you know that that debate has been pursued on several other threads.

truthislight: It is not wise to allow a controversial issue to contradict other part of the bible to please "church fathers"

This is a false claim: first let me see you reconcile your preference of John 1:1 as "a god" with John 1:18 and the other interpretation of 'logos' as "story" or "mouth" with Revelation 19:13 based on the Greek text and construction. You can use the NWT of the JWs if you like.

truthislight: well, like i had said, consistency should be paramount.

As I said, try and demonstrate this "consistency" by reconciling John 1:1 with John 1:18 and Revelation 19:13.

truthislight: And there are grammatical rule that me that dont speak greek should not be in place to go into.

If you don't know the rules, how can you accuse those who translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God" of doctrinal bias. Is it not better to be cautious or circumspect? As I have said before: those alleging "bias" about the interpretation "the Word was God" have not shown any SINGLE evidence other than mere assertion!

truthislight: But there is this wiki article that discussed this issue and did not say that they the JW have broken any rule, and that was a discussion amongst the experts and not with someone that cannot speak greek.

Check this out:

"Nigerians are frauds."

Interpretaion 1 = "All Nigerians are frauds".

Is that a possible interpretation? Is that a legitimate interpretation? Does that interpretation break any rule? Would you agree with that interpretation?


Interpretation 2 = "Some Nigerians are frauds".

Is that a possible interpretation? Is that a legitimate interpretation? Does that interpretation break any rule? Would you agree with that interpretation?

truthislight: like i have said, am not an expert on this(greek), so i will leave that to the expert.

But the use of capital and or small letters is to point out when the translator is of the view that it is either the almighty or not.

So, it is right to conclude that trinitarian will natural wish to use capital letters at John 1:1 to show that Jesus is the almighty God there.

But none trinitarians will also use the small letters to show the difference between Jesus and the almighty God there.

It then all boils down to doctrine. No?

For me a none translator that have seen where Jesus said that the father sent him.

The father is greater than him.

I find it very difficult to relate with some certain notion.

At the red bolded the answer is: No, not necessarily; there are rules of interpretation, whether it be of Greek grammar and construction and contextual reading of material, that can assist with identifying the best translation out of what might be the possible range. That is why I made the point about modern translators who often are drawn from interdenominational backgrounds and IIRC might have even on occasion included atheists. In that instance the conclusion on that verse would not be because of doctrinal bias.

By the way I have another question that I have deliberately chosen to ask separately:

Do you think that when John wrote John 1:1 he too was affected by doctrinal bias or not?

truthislight: well, i guess that is why we are here discussing it.

But i dont know why our friend Enigma will not want to see it that way, though impossible.

But this impossibility started when?

1. Do you agree that your own organisation's translation i.e. the JW's NWT is affected by doctrinal bias?

2. Do you believe that a single verse like John 1:1 can be translated without doctrinal bias but simply based on its grammatical construction and contextual evidence?

truthislight: dont mind my error about "logos" there.

I have removed it, it was not that necessary though.

If you notice, I didn't make an issue about your error with logos at all; even though I answered your point in that regard. My answer remains the same, people can translate the relevant part of Acts 28:6 as follows and I will let them have that interpretation:

they changed their minds and said Paul was God.

By the way, it was not you that I was referring to about the subconscious admission of diversionary tactics.

truthislight: . . . My bone here is that doctrine should not in any way influence scriptural translation but the consistency of scripture should be paramount.

I agree!!!! My own is to try with all best efforts using spiritual and intellectual faculties available to understand what Scripture is trying to communicate.

Therefore if anyone has evidence that the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is because of doctrinal bias, let them table it!

So far we have seen NONE --- beyond mere assertion!

truthislight: Cus, the word under consideration is "logos" and the context should naturally lead one to the right conclusion but with this advent of big and small alphabet translators can now point out what they believe the portion of the bible in question is talking about.

And many people acting with honesty, integrity, NO doctrinal bias and with enormous skill in Greek conclude that "the Word was God" is the appropriate translation of John 1:1.

Let me give you just a little demonstration: the apostle John wrote John 1:1. One of that very apostle's own students is said to be Ignatius. Ignatius worked with the original Greek; he never knew of any translation into English and such like. This very Ignatius, student of apostle John the author of John 1:1 said,

How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Bear in mind his use of "God the Word" in addition to "the Word was God"!



EDIT Please see now my clarification in a later post that this quote attributed to Ignatius is from the Epistle to the Tarsians which is disputed as spurious and thus my pointing to a different passage from the less controversial Epistle to the Trallians.

@ truthislight

To clarify, your friend is trying to point out to you that Acts 28:6 does not use the word* "logos" (*no pun intended). Instead the word for "a god" is 'theos' or 'theon'.

Pastor AIO: ol boy, change the red bolded quick before he pounces on it and starts to make a song and dance about it as a diversionary tactic.

Ah, subconscious admission of using diversionary tactics.

Interestingly, it's been less pathetic on this thread than others that I've seen.

truthislight: i dont know the use of that ^^^

are you saying that the translator today dont know how to speak greek ?

1. If you don't know the relevance of what the earliest users of the Greek text thought, that is fine.
2. I said that TODAY's experts in Greek, using 'original' manuscrits, are STILL translating John 1:1 as "the Word was God".

truthislight: but if their was no capitaisation of alphabet, should it all have been written as "god" or as "God" without considering the consistencies of the other part of the scriptures? But then, the early church introduce capitalisation for a reason.

1. No, the "early church" did not introduce capitalisation.
2. Whether it is written as "god" or as "God" does not matter much to me; we only use that for clarity of communication. It is quite possible to understand what is meant when the word "god" is used in the Bible with or without capitalisation.

truthislight: We are talking about consistensis of scriptures, Gods word. God cannot be irrational.

The translation "the Word was God" is consistent with the entire body of Scriptures and is not irrational. On another note, it may be that we need to clarify what is meant by "rational"; some would argue that the claim that a virgin gave birth is not "rational".

truthislight: Older translations also employed the use of the small alphabet were they feel that it is not talking about the almighty God like in acts of the apostles.(paul case "god" though it is still the same word "logos" that is use for capitalisation of "God"

This one is very easy to answer and that is why I ignored it when the other guy posted it. In fact, rather than explain it I will answer you this way. Why don't you translate 'god' in that Acts passage as God with capital G and stick with it ---- as long as it makes sense to you? I will not challenge you for that choice.

truthislight: so, why do we now say that the doctrine of the early church cannot influence the placement of capitalisation of God/god?

I have not said this at all. The "early church" did not do any capitalisation. On the other hand, if a person believes that the Word in John 1:1 refers to Jesus and that the entirety of Scriptures teaches that Jesus is God, it is only logical, legitimate and proper that when translating to English the word "god" when used for Jesus should be with a capital G according to grammar rules of the English language.

truthislight: so, in this vanacular translation, preconceived notion/doctrine will not influence the translation of John 1:1 ?

So you do not trust yourself to be able to translate John 1:1 into your own vernacular without bias and with integrity?

Anyway, relax.

I can assure you that my vanacular is not greek?

Of course, I didn't think it was; I am still interested to see you translate John 1:1 into a Nigerian vernacular ---- even from the Jehovah Witness' NWT English translation.

truthislight: Did the early manuscript have capital letters and lower case letters/alphabet?

Did the early manuscripts have commas, full stops, colons, semi colons etc?

truthislight: In what way do different dialects pronounce the word "God" and "god"?

Do the pronounce it differently?

I'm not sure I follow. What I know is that speech does not distinguish between capital letters and small letters; but even then it is pretty easy to know when a person is speaking about the one God Almighty or about a god that is (claimed to be) some form of 'deity'.

truthislight: Why should i be interested in that ^^^ if i have access to the original manuscript and can read the language?

If you have access to the original language and you understand it to a level that you can make a translation, then please supply us with your translation of John 1:1, And maybe also John 1:18, Revelation 19:13 --- I actually still have a host of others.

truthislight: Do we have a recorded version of how they pronounce it or it is this same original manuscript they made use of?

The apostles that wrote the scriptures all died off in the 1ce.

If you know how "they" pronounced it. I'd be interested to hear. My reference was to extant Greek manuscripts.

If the aspostles died off in the 1ce, could you tell us of the earliest person or people that you are aware of who was/were using the writings of the apostles? That might help us here.

truthislight: Should it not matter that the bible should not be contradictory?
That the word of God should be consistent Genesis to Revelation?

Now this is interesting.

1. If you translate John 1:1 as "a god", you will then have to explain why that is not contradictory with John 1:18 --- unless you also translate John 1:18 as ---- "a god".

2. If you translate "logos" in John 1:1 as "story" or "mouth", you will have to explain why it should not also be translated as "story" or "mouth" in Revelation 19:13.

See, this lark is pretty easy!

truthislight: Are men not fallible again?

Oh! "Spirit filled men" what of the MOG's of today that are also "spirit filled"?
Are they also not fallible?

I'm afraid I don't know what this is about! I don't know what in my posts led to that.

truthislight: If i can see the original manuscript in "black and white" (written) the sense gotten that will ensure not to contradict the scriptures should be my concern and perogative, being my aim Expercailly since there was no capital letters and small case alphabet "therein".

As I said, if you understand the original languages well enough I would very much like to see your interpretation of the passages we have been discussing.

truthislight: Unless i am wrong, they all sound the same way i think.

And are spelt "logos"

Sorry, I don't understand this point; perhaps if you make it clearer I'd be able to address it.

truthislight: should i follow the consistensis of the scriptures or i should follow the "church" ?

If the "truth" is the word of God and that is what men need to be saved, of what use will the word of the church be to me if it deviate from the "truth" ?

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

If you feel that I am asking you to follow "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, then I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. My point was that before those things or "churches", Christians had access to John 1:1 etc etc.