₦airaland Forum

truthislight: . . .And he proved his point with the coptic case of the 2ce translation.

By the way, I hope you realise that despite the claims about the Coptic translation (which scholars have actually explained), Coptic Christians are still Trinitarians! In other words, despite the translation, they still believe in the doctrine of The Holy Trinity.

So why was it not necessary for them to "manipulate" their Bible to fit their Trinitarian belief and doctrine?

truthislight: . . .He was saying that what people today take to be the "standard translation" may have been influence by the doctrine of the early translators and not that what is contain thereing(early translation) is the message of the original manuscript.

8

Maybe; but firstly, even that raises questions e,g, early translators into what language? And why are translators TODAY working with ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts STILL translating John 1:1 as those "early translators"?

Secondly, the unsupported (or perhaps ill-thought or ill-expressed) allegations go beyond what you have stated. Take just one example:

the bible was translated and collated by an institution with an agenda

Raises questions inter alia like:
- which institution "collated" the Bible?
- was it that same institution that "translated" the Bible?
- into what language did that institution translate the Bible?
- was that institution the "Church of the Roman Empire" the guy later referred to?
- is that "Church of the Roman Empire" the same as the Roman Catholic Church?

Now more serious issues for a Christian would be: before there was such a thing as "the Church of the Roman Empire" or the Roman Catholic Church, how did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 (and related passages)?

Before there was this "Church of the Roman Empire" thing, did the earliest Christians understand John 1:1 to be referring to Jesus and did they understand it to say Jesus i.e. "the Word was God".

We do indeed have evidence of how Christians saw John 1:1 before there was the Roman Catholic Church however you want to define that (legitimately and reasonably) or before what I believe is being called "the Church of the Roman Empire".

We have evidence of how people who were working with the Greek text, long before its translation into English, understood the text.*

So all these talk of translation into English as "a god" is not as impressive as its purveyors think.

Truthislight, I do not know your particular vernacular but I'd be interested in how John 1:1 will be translated into your own language. I know how it is translated into Yoruba and may bring that to the table later.



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

^^^

Bros, I don't recall that anyone has said that translations are not or cannot be influenced by docrine. I have certainly not said that. The most obvious example where a translation is evidently affected by preconceived doctrine is the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT Bible ---- but it is not the only one. You can even presently see threads arguing that the NIV etc are not to be trusted and so on.

The key issue is that people should not make baseless or unsupported allegations. I can flesh out some of these matters later. For now I confine myself to asking why John 1:18 is not to to be translated as:

"No man hath seen a god at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [it]."

Or why Revelation 19:13 is not to be translated as either

"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the story of God." OR "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the mouth of God."

^^^ Abi now! The fellow dey use the well known Coptic Bible argument when his own allegation and (the thread) is about English translations. Meanwhile the argument about the Coptic Bible is answered in the very Wikipedia wey the guy man dey post but e no see am of course.

The guy wey make allegation about the "Church of the Roman Empire" (we don't even know what he means by that; bifor bifor na Roman Catholic Church hin dey talk) has not produced a single evidence to support the allegations. Yet, e dey complain say people with no duty of proof have not been gracious or kind enough to teach him about principles of interpretation/translation! Make he dey joke or dey yoke continue.

First thing, as I said, the thing wey dey bite you dey ya body; e no concern me.

Anyway, most of the post above is irrelevant so I will not waste my time with much of the post.

In fact all I will do is refer again to a point I made earlier and which I am not surprised you did not address. In case you did not understand it, I'll make it a little clearer: John 1:18 has a similar grammatical construction in Greek as John 1:1, so why should it not be translated in the following way?

John 1:18 as "No man hath seen a god at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [it]."

Oh and then of course one might also come to how to address the small matter of Revelation 19:13

13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Oh I guess, according to your interpretive technique that should also be interpreted: "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the story of God." Or do you prefer, "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the mouth of God."

You see what you do not realise is that in my few posts I have already begun to school you on the "criteria" behind translation principles. But of course there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.

Anyway, I will not give you proper schooling on principles, "criteria" etc used by translators whether of the Bible or generally, firstly because one who truly seeks to learn needs to show humility (of which you are totally devoid except to your atheist etc colleagues) and secondly because ---- I simply couldn't be bothered. You might get lucky one day and see me give details ---- when I'm conversing with someone worthy.

Pastor AIO: This guy, my matter is still biting you.

Wetin dey do dis one? Hmm, sorry oh! The thing wey dey bite you dey for ya body; you don't need to look beyond that.

Pastor AIO: I don't think Logos has ever been translated to mean mouth in any literature. But maybe you know something that I don't.

This is you showing something you know that others don't.

https://www.nairaland.com/1119991/bible-meant-teach-us-faith/1#13222438

Pastor AIO: This is very interesting. Is it the source that determines whether it is valid for you? Say it came from a source that you respect, and that same source told you to jump in the river and drown, are you trying to tell me that you can't think for yourself and consider that it would be stupd of you to kill yourself?

Forget about the source. Try to exercise your brain cells.

Check out this site: http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm


Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.


The pertinent word is Logos which I marked in red above. According to STrongs:

a word, the Word
From lego; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ) -- account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

http://biblesuite.com/strongs/greek/3056.htm


Now of all the possible rendering of logos in English what makes 'Word' a better rendering than 'Reason'. Or even Story.

In the beginning was the Story and the Story was with God and God was the story.


Why do you think that Word gives us a better rendering of Logos than Reason?

So there you have your "mouth". Ok, I can change my sample translation this way and I'm sure you will not object : "In the beginning was story and story was with God and story was a god." Makes perfect sense of course!

Pastor AIO: To settle this matter you should tell us what are the criteria or basic rules when translating from Greek to English for determining whether to add the article or not.

In the way you have "settled the matter" with your unsupported claims! Like when the "Church of the Roman Empire" (not Roman Catholic Church again? ) influenced the translation of John 1:1 ---- into what language again? Because those who are well informed know that the debate about John 1:1 dates back to its form in its original Greek -- long long long before anyone thought of translating it into English and such like.

Exodus 18:9 "And Jethro rejoiced . . . ."

Na im Jethro Belle come sweet like sugar --- jus like wen Rasaki bin buy Kawasaki.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church#11991972

"Oga, dis one harrr o; dis thing wey you dey talk too hard!" then Jesus turned to the inner circle too (i.e. the apostles) and said "abi una too wan begin go - if de thing too hard for una?" And one of them reply ---- "Whosai we wan go? Na you when get the words of eternal life!"


John 6

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Ubenedictus: relativism at the end nothing is true! This position is beautifully repulsive

Yep, and it is nonsense or very poor thinking.

Of course we can have, "In the beginning was mouth and mouth was with God and mouth was a god"

Or you could translate John 1:18 as "No man hath seen a god at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [it]."

Zikkyy: This is all you have to say? After all your 'gra-gra' when you were shouting "count me in Gosh, count me in" I was thinking Goshen was in serious trouble. You dey fall my hand

You mean to say he was gragravating the matter?

^^^ The case of some of them is hopeless. The problem comes in a variety of ways: very poor comprehension; looking for something negative in anything and everything concerned with the Bible and in even rather innocuous things; then you have those with half-baked knowledge without a proper understanding of a topic or even a sufficient knowledge of the academic and 'intellectual' literature who are simply grandstanding e.g. the misunderstood case of John 1:1.

JeSoul: . . . Wia is Enigma? . . . .

I've been rather heavily involved in some other matters.

Anyway, my answer is simple but expressed in terms of a question: if you say that Nigeria's case is "hopeless", do you mean for ever and always?

Supplementary questions?

"Hopeless" in what respect anyway? What is it you expect from Nigeria that you believe it will never realise?

If it takes 100 years for Nigeria to realise "it", is that "hopeless"? Can you see that far ahead?

Has there ever been a country that at any point in history could have been said to be in similarly bad and 'lawless' situation as Nigeria (eg someone mentioned America of an era; others?)? How long did it take any such country to get better?

The so-called advanced countries ---- how long did it take them to get where they are today and what did it cost them?

Even as things are today, are there some countries that are worse to be in than Nigeria or not (corruption or no corruption)? Are those countries "hopeless" too? Even those among them where there is little or no "corruption"?

Ah, by the way in that same Naija, there are people who are running businesses (of various sizes ranging from tiny to huge) successfully, legitimately and with reasonable honesty. I have examples.

^^^ You are making a false accusation and, in any event, the point you are trying to make is really non sequitur.

magmegas: Jn 1vs1
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and through him all things were made and the word was made flesh. . . . .

Amen; Three in One forever blessed.

Ubenedictus: not suprised, u reject the belief in the communion of saints so im not really suprised that u don't consider mary an intercessor.
Ur last paragraph i agree with.

Where did I reject belief in the communion of saints?

^^^ I do not believe in treating Mary as mediatrix.

I agree that honour is due to her and the Bible gives her this. See Luke 1:28 etc; also, look up something called The Magnificat.

Meekness and Majesty

Meekness and majesty
Manhood and Deity
In perfect harmony
The Man who is God
Lord of eternity
Dwells in humanity
Kneels in humility
And washes our feet

Refrain:
O what a mystery
Meekness and majesty
Bow down and worship
For this is your God
This is your God

Father's pure radiance
Perfect in innocence
Yet learns obedience
To death on a cross
Suffering to give us life
Conquering through sacrifice
And as they crucify
Prays: 'Father forgive.'

Wisdom unsearchable
God the invisible
Love indestructible
In frailty appears
Lord of infinity
Stooping so tenderly
Lifts our humanity
To the heights of His throne

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBonpqR7ay0

Ubenedictus: Ofcuz mary gave birth to Jesus according to the flesh, catholic believe that, joshep is d father according to law (adoption), catholics believe that too! Mary isn't the originator of Jesus' divinity catholics believe that, Jesus exists eternally and is b4 mary, catholic believe that too! Jesus God the son, took human flesh in the womb of mary by the power of God and d working of the holyspirit, catholics believe that, and by taking flesh in mary's womb Jesus is both God and man (hypostatic union) catholics also believe that!
The last part is what follows, since Jesus wu is God took flesh and became Godman thru conception mary gave birth to Jesus who is both man and God. She didnt give birth to just a man, a man isn't Jesus, instead she gave birth to the word made flesh, God in human form.
Thus she is the mother of God.
Please note the statements above flows and an attempt to circumvent them will be illogical. The only way u can say mary isn't d mother of God is to claim like ijawkid and frosbel that Jesus isnt God.
If u go with ijawkid atleast u are free of hypocrisy, if u claim Jesus is God and mary isn't d mother of God then that is hypocrisy!

Quite well put. Although whether expressed as 'Theotokos' or 'Mother of God' the expression or concept needs to be understood in its proper context. Mary is human and Jesus is God and God is God. Mary was only the vessel chosen to be the bearer of God for the purpose of His incarnation --- not that Mary is the one who gave Jesus, God the Son, His 'origin' or for that matter who gave God the Father His 'origin'.

The need to understand the expression in context is similar to the need to understand The Holy Trinity in context; it is in part failure to understand The Holy Trinity in context that makes some people turn against the doctrine and come up with silly things like Jesus is an 'angel', Jesus is 'a god' or the most daft of all Jesus is 'just a man'.

On the other hand, the difficulty other Trinitarian believers have with Roman Catholics on this issue is the question of how far to take and appreciate the honour due to Mary; many do not believe in the idea of Mary as an intermediary, mediatrix etc.

Ishilove, how bodi now?

@naptu2

Ah, yes I remember that "run gerry run gerry run run run" song too! just can't remember the group either!

Also that Omota agablagba song did have the rap like you said e.g. omi ni wa, omi ni water; emu ni be, emu ni beer.

You really are the coolest, naptu2!

Ah, I also want to add about Moluẹ (sorry I can't go back to the page some way back)

The photos were of a later type of Moluẹ called 911 (i.e. Mercedes Benz 911 bus); the original Moluẹ was actually a bit smaller than the 911 and I believe was phased out earlier. The 911 had the nickname "Ọsa straight" (lagoon straight) because one fell from a bridge into the lagoon in a tragic accident.

By the way, there is a nice song from the 80s dedicated to the Moluẹ that goes partly "Moluẹ, Lagos city transport" etc; the group (a couple of guys also had another song called "Ọmọta agbalagba" (Old thug). Unfortunately I can't immediately recall the group's name.


Looking for music by Alex O and Alex Zitto,

Superb work naptu2 (and others); simply fantastic thread. Una really really do well . . . . and tap, and river sef!

Re Sura de tailor song, more lines go

Sura de tailor
Ẹspat in sọọrọ and buba o (expert in . . )
A trayal will kọnfins you (a trial will convince . . . )


Re planta ad, further line of the song goes

'The rich creamy Planta with that best butter taste for you'


One or two things (out of gazillions) I'd like to see

Advert for Schweppes Bitter Lemon ("it's a fresh cool world . . . etc; 17 kobo a bottle of the shelf, liquid contents only)

Desperate for this one: Igbo song by Tony Okoroji (translated 'I will buy lace for my mama' etc etc) possibly called "mama and papa" from album of same name.

Kingmaker: Oga John, we wan make you king but people talk say you too dey swear!

Oga John: Who talk say I dey too swear? E no go better for de papa and mama of any pesin wey tok say I dey too swear.

italo: @ Enigma,

First you qouted St. Ignatius as saying "where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."

...And St. Ignatius around 100AD.

Then you said this:

...And Origen was born in 185AD.

So did Origen put together all the books of the Bible long before his own birth?

Ah, this is quite simple and is the same point I have been making all this while.

What Ignatius meant by "Catholic Church" is different from what the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic apologists are now calling "The Catholic Church".

Note the following distinctions:

1. As far as Ignatius was concerned each Church wherever was complete and universal, therefore = catholic. BUT now the Roman Catholics disgaree with that; they say for a church to be "Catholic" it must submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope". Ignatius said or recognised no such thing!

2. Ignatius said wherever Jesus is there is the "Catholic Church"; we also know that wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name, there Jesus is. BUT the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with both Ignatius and Jesus or at least sees things differently! The Roman Catholic Church says that if two or three people are gathered in Jesus' name (and therefore Jesus IS there), they are still not part of the "The Catholic Church" aka the Roman Catholic Church as long as they do not submit to the "supreme authority" of the Roman Catholic "pope"!

So let me give you two scenarios:

Scenario A

Ade, Uche and Isa all believe in Jesus. They do not belong to any denomination or abomination; they frequently meet to pray and 'fellowship'. Well, Jesus says He is with them; BUT the Roman Catholic Church says they are not part of "The Catholic Church". In fact the Roman Catholic Church says they are "anathema"! Ade, Uche & Isa say: 'well we don't care about "The Catholic Church"; we are more than happy to be part of the catholic Church instead'.

Scenario B

Akinkunmi from Sabo Baptist Church travels to Aswan in Egypt. He evangelises and converts Ahmed, Farouk and Rilwan of Aswan to Christianity. After Akinkunmi returns to Nigeria, Ahmed, Farouk and Rilwan meet regularly to pray and 'fellowship' together. Jesus says He is with them. BUT the Roman Catholic church says that those Egyptian fellas are not part of "The Catholic Church". Other christians like Enigma who hear about those people say 'who cares what Roman Catholics say that those fellas are not part of "The Catholic Church"? What matters is that they are part of the catholic Church!'

Simples

Now a test for you: when did "The Catholic Church" come into existence?

materxxdxa: Of course the Catholic Church DID !

Note that the Bible is not in itself a BOOK, but A COLLECTION of books. These books were compiled by different scholars according to the directives and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These books were GATHERED and CANONIZED by the Catholic Church in the Council of Rome in AD 382. It was by the Church's Authority, under the Pontificate of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384)that the Bible we have today came to be bound together as one. . . .

Re red-bolded

FALSE! The Roman Catholic Church only fools ignorant people with this falsehood.

First of all, waaaay before there was such a thing as "The Catholic Church" Origen and others had already put together all the books that make up today's Bible. They were already preserved.

Second, the claims about Damasus is another falsehood; in fact a fraud. Look, even Roman Catholic defenders here like chukwudi44 and Italo have been very careful not to use the Damasus falsehood. Their argument is based on the African synods of Hippo and Carthage. I assume it is because they know that the fraudulent claims about Damasus can be easily exposed.

Let me leave a bonus here http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml

From The Summons http://www.spiritandsong.com/compositions/30338

3. Will you let the blinded see
If I but call your name?
Will you set the pris’ners free
And never be the same?
Will you kiss the leper clean,
And do such as this unseen,
And admit to what I mean
In you and you in me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8lOfMjtxdE

The "Catholics" aka the Roman Catholics did not give us the Bible.

See https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church
https://www.nairaland.com/1101186/catholics-really-wants-make-heaven/1#12971283

and also

https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11813883
https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/7#11826930
https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12318807
https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via/2#12707518


(Edited)

^^^ Evangelical atheism is certainly now a religion. Just do a search on the forum for 'evangelical atheism' (or something like that) and a number of threads on the point should come up; even courts (especially the highest courts in the US) have held that it is very much a religion. Indeed it is not only a religion, for some of its practitioners it is even a fundamentalist religion hence we can now also speak of 'fundagelical atheists'.

@ Jesoul

Gotcha, thanks. The old 'message' can now 'self-destruct'.

JeSoul: Hehe...I almost did not see this post (Logicboy & Ihe having a pillow fight )... but yeah...its funny ehn , I have nothing to say in challenge self and in the future I will simply recuse myself from commenting on experiences I have not had - you sef don't be so 'gentle' with your in-law all the time .

May Almighty God continue to lead us in His own way and in His own time to the truths necessary or important for us --- especially using good and joyful things and events.

On another note, please advise and confirm the topical/reigning colour whether blue --- or the traditional alternative? I've been interested to know since that reference to the first day of the week (some people's equivalent of Sabbath) when addressing Goshen360 --- which makes me think blue it is.

obadiah777: . . . . SEE, GREAT PEOPLE DONT NEED TO BE REINFORCED BY THEIR EGOS AND DEFIANCE EVEN WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE WRONG. GREAT PEOPLE ARE INTROSPECTIVELY REINFORCED AND AS SUCH THEIR EGO IS NOT DEPENDENT ON REINFORCING A LIE. IT TAKES A GREAT MAN TO EASILY SHED AND ADMIT WRONG THINGS. ( AND I DONT MEAN 'GREAT' IN THE SENSE OF HOW CARNAL PEOPLE SEE 'GREAT'. GREATNESS IS INTEGRITY. A POOR MAN CAN BE GREAT WHILE A RICH MAN CAN BE NOT GREAT DEPENDING ON THE CARNALITY OF WHO IS JUDGING. SO THE POINT IS, IT TAKES A REAL MAN TO MOULT AND SHED AWAY DEAD INFO.

You're droppin' some real science here, brah!

cyrexx: . . . .
*edited*

LoL

Ok, have fun.