₦airaland Forum

Note: αὐτοῦ is translated as "it" to maintain neutrality, as the pronoun could refer to ὁ Λόγος as either a personified entity (masculine) or an abstract principle (neuter, though Λόγος is grammatically masculine).

So we can also say
"All things came to be through him, and without him not even one thing came to be that has come to be."

Explanation

πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο: Indicates that everything that exists came into being through the agency or mediation of αὐτοῦ (the Word, assuming continuity with ὁ Λόγος from the prior text). διά with the genitive suggests instrumentality or means.

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν: Reinforces that no single thing came into existence without αὐτοῦ, emphasizing its essential role in all creation or coming-to-be.

ὃ γέγονεν: The relative clause clarifies that the statement applies to everything that has come into existence, using the perfect tense to denote a completed state of being.

Please translate: πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν

To translate the Greek text πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν based strictly on Greek syntax and vocabulary, without invoking religious context, we’ll analyze each component and provide a literal translation.


"All things came to be through it, and without it not even one thing came to be that has come to be."

Image123:
Ludicrous

but you somehow have the time to screenshot your blocked post. Bro 😆😂 🤣

gohf:
Okay let's test some simple things out

Did I tell you or anyone to worship AI? Yes or no

Did I tell you or anyone that an AI is always correct or perfect? Yes or no

Did I tell you or did anyone tell you I started using AI 2 months ago?

Is the AI, Grok's analysis of the Greek syntax and grammar excluding theologically view of same text, wrong? Yes or no

These are simple questions and a honest person easily answers these truthfully. I would be expecting your answers without deviation or long yarns

image123 God has not given his children the spirit of fear and cowardice, but the spirit of boldness, of love and of sound mind.

You have been online, even responding to other mentions. It's evident you have nothing against the truth and you are not one of those my signature speaks about. I take your silence as the answer

Image123:
Lolz, people who just started using AI 2 months ago think we should drop everything else and worship AI. Lolz, the same AI that sometimes gets confused with simple arithmetic, and literally states that it makes mistakes and should not be taken seriously. Facepalm.

Okay let's test some simple things out

Did I tell you or anyone to worship AI? Yes or no

Did I tell you or anyone that an AI is always correct or perfect? Yes or no

Did I tell you or did anyone tell you I started using AI 2 months ago?

Is the AI, Grok's analysis of the Greek syntax and grammar excluding theologically view of same text, wrong? Yes or no

These are simple questions and a honest person easily answers these truthfully. I would be expecting your answers without deviation or long yarns

Boomark:
Not all are trinitarians

Tags: Arian, FxMasterz,
jimRohn or Kobojunkie , maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, JessicaRabbit, DeepSight, SIRTee15, TheSourcerer, Busybrain2233, Fourthpredator,
bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2, Wilgrea7, A001, Maynthemayn, achorladey, Jozzy4, MightySparrow, NowYouKnow, TemmyT002, johnw47, Emusan, Gabrielshow24, rottennaija, Janosky, LordReed, DeepSight,
tctrills, Dtruthspeaker, Everyday247, Ruke1990, sonmvayina, MeetDx DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022, Jaephoenix, Knownunknown, BBIA HellVictorinho6, SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist, FRANCISTOWN, Aemmyjah, 1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack,
Botragelad, isan,
seun, hopefullandlord, bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2, kkins25, Wilgrea7, Maynthemayn, Ken4Christ, Steep, Chibuezem. gohf, TenQ, Ohyoudidnt, WeirdAlien, Linaloca7, Explore2xmore, armchairscholar, BIBLESPEAKS,

it's all good let's see what they have to say about the conclusion from an AI analyzing the Greek text

This is Grok's conclusion:
Thus, we cannot say that ὁ Λόγος(the Word), though described as having divine nature, is τὸν Θεόν ("God". The text portrays ὁ Λόγος as a distinct entity with divine qualities, existing in close relation to τὸν Θεόν in the beginning.


Like it's amazing how consistent this is with the new testament that tells us that children of God have God's nature and are sons (and daughters) of God but they(we) are not God.

Conclusion

Based on the Greek text’s syntax and vocabulary:

Not "God" (as τὸν Θεόν): ὁ Λόγος is not presented as identical to τὸν Θεόν (the specific deity). The use of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν and the qualitative Θεὸς indicate distinction, with ὁ Λόγος being "with" the deity and sharing divine qualities, not being the deity itself.


Not clearly "a god": While Θεὸς could be translated as "a god," the anarthrous construction and context suggest a qualitative sense ("divine" rather than portraying ὁ Λόγος as a separate divine entity. The philosophical tone leans toward Λόγος as a principle with divine attributes, not a distinct "god."

Not "the same as the God": The text explicitly distinguishes ὁ Λόγος from τὸν Θεόν through πρὸς and the structure, ruling out identity.

The author portrays ὁ Λόγος as a distinct entity, existing in the beginning, in close relation to τὸν Θεόν (the deity), and possessing divine qualities (Θεὸς, "divine".

The best translation, as previously provided, is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the deity, the Word was divine. This was in the beginning with the deity." This reflects ὁ Λόγος as divine in nature but not identical to τὸν Θεόν.

Is ὁ Λόγος "the same as the God" (i.e., identical to τὸν Θεόν)?

The text does not equate ὁ Λόγος with τὸν Θεόν. The phrase πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (twice repeated) indicates ὁ Λόγος is distinct from τὸν Θεόν, existing "with" or "in relation to" it. The qualitative Θεὸς in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος describes ὁ Λόγος as having divine nature, not as being the same entity as τὸν Θεόν. In Greek, identity would typically be expressed with a definite article (ὁ Θεός) or a clearer equative structure, which is absent here.
The repetition in Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν further emphasizes this distinction, reinforcing that ὁ Λόγος is in a relationship with τὸν Θεόν, not identical to it.

Is ὁ Λόγος "a god"?

Translating Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, as Θεὸς can mean "a god" or "deity" in Greek, especially in polytheistic or philosophical contexts where multiple divine beings are considered.

HOWEVER, the anarthrous Θεὸς in this construction typically emphasizes quality over individuality. Saying "a god" implies a separate divine entity, which could align with the distinction suggested by πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, but it risks implying a lesser or independent deity, which the text does not explicitly support.

The context of the passage, with ὁ Λόγος being "with the deity" (τὸν Θεόν) and described as Θεὸς (divine), suggests ὁ Λόγος shares divine qualities rather than being a distinct "god" in the sense of a separate divine being. The philosophical use of Λόγος (e.g., in Stoicism or Platonism) often portrays it as a principle or force, not a standalone deity.

Okay so please from that text can we say that the logos is God or a god or the same with the God?

Addressing the Question: Is ὁ Λόγος "God," "a god," or "the same as the God"?

Let’s evaluate each possibility based on the Greek text:

Is ὁ Λόγος "God" (as a proper noun or specific deity, i.e., τὸν Θεόν)?The phrase ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("the Word was with the deity" implies distinction between ὁ Λόγος and τὸν Θεόν. The preposition πρὸς suggests a relational proximity (e.g., being "with" or "alongside" rather than identity. If the author intended to say ὁ Λόγος is τὸν Θεόν (the specific deity), a direct equation like ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεός or a different construction would be expected.

The clause Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος does not use the definite article with Θεὸς, suggesting a qualitative description ("divine" rather than identifying ὁ Λόγος as the specific deity (τὸν Θεόν). Thus, ὁ Λόγος is not presented as identical to "God" (i.e., τὸν Θεόν, the deity referenced).

Boomark could you kindly quote and mention all those jesus is God people, so that they can come here read what Grok is saying concerning John 1:1-2

Conclusion

The author is not saying that ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason) is τὸν Θεόν (the deity).


Instead, the text indicates:ὁ Λόγος existed in the beginning and was in a close relationship with τὸν Θεόν (the deity), as shown by πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

ὁ Λόγος possesses divine qualities or nature (Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος), but the anarthrous Θεὸς suggests it is "divine" rather than identical to the specific deity (τὸν Θεόν).
The repetition reinforces this relationship and distinction, emphasizing ὁ Λόγος’s divine status and its association with the deity without merging their identities.

In summary, the author portrays ὁ Λόγος as a distinct entity with divine attributes, existing alongside and in relation to τὸν Θεόν, not as the deity itself. Let me know if you’d like further clarification or a deeper dive into specific aspects!

Repetition and Structure:

The final clause (Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) reiterates the relationship, emphasizing ὁ Λόγος’s distinct yet intimate connection with τὸν Θεόν. This repetition would be redundant if the author intended to equate them outright, as it would suffice to state their identity once.

Qualitative Θεὸς in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος:

The anarthrous Θεὸς indicates that ὁ Λόγος possesses divine qualities or nature, not that it is identically τὸν Θεόν (the specific deity referenced earlier). In Greek grammar, an anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb (as here) typically describes the subject’s character or category rather than equating it with a definite entity. For example, saying "the Word was divine" is like saying a person "is kingly" (having the qualities of a king) rather than "is the king" (a specific king).

Does the Author Equate ὁ Λόγος with τὸν Θεόν?

Distinction Implied by πρὸς τὸν Θεόν: The use of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in two clauses suggests ὁ Λόγος is a separate entity in relation to τὸν Θεόν. In Greek, πρὸς with the accusative implies being "with" or "facing" another entity, indicating distinction rather than identity. If the author meant ὁ Λόγος is τὸν Θεόν, this phrase would be unnecessary or phrased differently (e.g., equating them directly).

Analysis of Key Elements

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word": This establishes that ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason) existed at the start. Λόγος can mean "word," "reason," or "principle" in philosophical Greek, and the definite article ὁ specifies a particular entity. (what AI means here is that the o article makes the word a person)

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("and the Word was with the deity":The preposition πρὸς with the accusative τὸν Θεόν (the deity) indicates a relationship of proximity, association, or orientation, often translated as "with" or "toward." The definite article τὸν specifies a particular deity. This suggests ὁ Λόγος is distinct from τὸν Θεόν but closely related or in communion with it.

Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("the Word was divine":Here, Θεὸς lacks the definite article (anarthrous), which in Greek often conveys a qualitative sense rather than a definite identity. The word order (predicate Θεὸς before ἦν) emphasizes the quality or nature of ὁ Λόγος as "divine" or "having divine essence" rather than equating it directly with a specific deity (e.g., τὸν Θεόν). If the author intended to say ὁ Λόγος is identically τὸν Θεόν, we might expect ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεός (with the definite article) or a different construction to indicate identity.

Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("This was in the beginning with the deity":Οὗτος (this) refers back to ὁ Λόγος, restating its existence "in the beginning" and its relationship "with the deity." This repetition reinforces the distinction between ὁ Λόγος and τὸν Θεόν while emphasizing their association.

Analysis of Key Elements

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word": This establishes that ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason) existed at the start.

Λόγος can mean "word," "reason," or "principle" in philosophical Greek, and the definite article ὁ specifies a particular entity.


καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("and the Word was with the deity": The preposition πρὸς with the accusative τὸν Θεόν (the deity) indicates a relationship of proximity, association, or orientation, often translated as "with" or "toward." The definite article τὸν specifies a particular deity. This suggests ὁ Λόγος is distinct from τὸν Θεόν but closely related or in communion with it.


Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("the Word was divine": Here, Θεὸς lacks the definite article (anarthrous), which in Greek often conveys a qualitative sense rather than a definite identity. The word order (predicate Θεὸς before ἦν) emphasizes the quality or nature of ὁ Λόγος as "divine" or "having divine essence" rather than equating it directly with a specific deity (e.g., τὸν Θεόν). If the author intended to say ὁ Λόγος is identically τὸν Θεόν, we might expect ὁ Λόγος ἦν ὁ Θεός (with the definite article) or a different construction to indicate identity.


Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("This was in the beginning with the deity":Οὗτος (this) refers back to ὁ Λόγος, restating its existence "in the beginning" and its relationship "with the deity." This repetition reinforces the distinction between ὁ Λόγος and τὸν Θεόν while emphasizing their association.

So is the author saying that the logos is the deity?

To determine whether the author of the Greek text

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν is stating that ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason) is τὸν Θεόν (the deity), we’ll analyze the text strictly based on Greek syntax and vocabulary, avoiding religious context as requested. The focus is on whether the grammar and word choices equate ὁ Λόγος with τὸν Θεόν or describe a different relationship.

Conclusion

The repetition of "this was in the beginning with the deity" is not strictly necessary for conveying the basic meaning, as the earlier clauses already establish the Word’s existence and relationship with the deity. However, it serves important rhetorical, structural, and emphatic functions in Greek: It reinforces the key ideas of the Word’s primacy and divine connection.
It provides clarity by explicitly referring back to the Word with Οὗτος.
It creates a balanced, symmetrical structure typical of Greek literary style.

Without the repetition, the text would still be coherent, but it would lose some of its rhetorical force and stylistic elegance. If you’re aiming for a minimalist translation, you could omit the final clause, but retaining it aligns with the Greek text’s intent to emphasize and clarify. Let me know if you’d like a streamlined translation or further exploration!

Purpose of Repetition in Greek:

Emphasis:

Repetition is a common rhetorical device in ancient Greek to emphasize key points. By restating ἐν ἀρχῇ ... πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the text reinforces the Word’s primordial existence and its relationship with the deity, ensuring these ideas are prominent.

Clarity and Structure: The repetition may serve to bookend the passage, creating a chiastic structure (A-B-B'-A'):

A: In the beginning was the Word.

B: The Word was with the deity.

B': The Word was divine.

A': This was in the beginning with the deity.


This structure emphasizes the connection between the Word’s existence, its divine nature, and its relationship with the deity.


Referential Cohesion: The pronoun Οὗτος (this) explicitly ties the final clause back to ὁ Λόγος, clarifying that the subject remains the same, avoiding ambiguity in a text where multiple entities (e.g., Θεός, Λόγος) are mentioned.

Rhetorical Rhythm: In Greek, repetition often enhances the rhythm or poetic quality of a text, making it more memorable or impactful, especially in oral delivery.



Necessity:

From a strictly linguistic perspective, the final clause (Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) is not essential to convey the core information, as the first two clauses already establish the Word’s existence and relationship with the deity. However, its inclusion serves rhetorical and stylistic purposes: It reinforces the temporal setting ("in the beginning" and the relational aspect ("with the deity".

It ensures the reader or listener connects the divine nature of the Word (from Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος) BACK to its initial state and relationship.

In philosophical Greek texts, such repetition can underscore the permanence or foundational nature of a concept (here, the Word’s association with the deity).

So I wanted to ask a side question especially concerning verse 2, so I asked:

Is there any need for repeating "this was in the beginning with the deity"


The Greek text Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν contains the repetition of the phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ ... πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("in the beginning ... with the deity" in the first and last clauses.

To address whether this repetition is necessary, let’s analyze its role based purely on Greek syntax and vocabulary, avoiding religious context:


Analysis of the Repetition

Syntactic Structure:
The first clause, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word", establishes the temporal existence of ὁ Λόγος (the Word/Reason).

The second clause, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("and the Word was with the deity", describes the Word’s relationship to τὸν Θεόν (the deity).

The third clause, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("the Word was divine", qualifies the nature of the Word as divine.

The final clause, Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("This was in the beginning with the deity", restates the first two ideas, with Οὗτος (this) referring back to ὁ Λόγος.

Explanation

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος: Establishes that the Word (Reason/Principle) existed at the start.

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν: Indicates the Word was in a relationship or proximity to a specific deity.

Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος: The anarthrous Θεὸς suggests a qualitative description, so "divine" captures the Word’s possession of divine essence or nature, rather than identifying it as a specific deity.

Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν: Reinforces that this Word was in the beginning in relation to the deity, with Οὗτος referring back to ὁ Λόγος.

This translation avoids religious connotations, treating Λόγος as a philosophical concept (e.g., reason or principle, as in Stoic or Platonic thought) and Θεός as a deity or divine essence, consistent with classical Greek usage. Let me know if you need further analysis or a different focus!

To translate the Greek text Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν purely based on Greek vocabulary and syntax, without invoking Christian theology, we’ll focus on the literal meanings of the words and their grammatical structure. Here’s the breakdown:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en archē): Prepositional phrase meaning "in the beginning" or "at the start." ἀρχή denotes the origin or initial point.

ἦν (ēn): Imperfect form of the verb "to be," meaning "was."

ὁ Λόγος (ho Logos): Λόγος means "word," "reason," "discourse," or "principle" in classical and philosophical Greek. The definite article ὁ indicates a specific "Word" or "Reason."

καὶ (kai): Conjunction meaning "and."

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (pros ton Theon): πρὸς means "with," "toward," or "in relation to."

τὸν Θεόν (with the definite article) refers to a specific "god" or "deity."

Θεὸς (Theos): A noun meaning "god" or "deity." In the anarthrous construction (without the definite article) in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, it emphasizes a qualitative sense, such as "divine" or "of divine nature."

Οὗτος (Houtos): Demonstrative pronoun meaning "this" or "it," referring back to ὁ Λόγος.


Literal Translation Based on Syntax and Vocabulary
Combining these elements, the text translates to:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the deity, the Word was divine. This was in the beginning with the deity."

Apostle John is said to have written 5 books, or 2 books and 3 letters, one book called the revelation of Jesus Christ and the other called the gospel of John.

Now some scholars claim there were inconsistent and added parts to the writings of John and I know some would like to use AI which may usually give commonly proclaimed Christianity theology that is recorded in it's database.

so I asked Grok this question:

okay please translate without using Christian theology, translate purely using Greek vocabulary and syntax: Ἐν archē ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁΛόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, Θεὸς ἦν ὁΛόγος Οὗτος ἦν ἐνἀρχῇ πρὸςτὸν Θεόν

I don't know why Exodus 7:1 the elohim there is referred to as god in english translation when it could have clearly being translated as angel

like Psalm 8:5 the term elohim is translated as angels

Hebrews call angels physical beings that represent the one true God, calls them sons of God.

Moses being made an angel to pharaoh would have been a preferable translation of that verse

SeraphicWind:
Growing up many many years ago in Nigeria, I insulted the hell out of Oyedepo. I will not lie. I was quite young and naive then.

My favourite name for him back then was OLE-DEPO (GOD Forgive me though)

There was even some tribalism to it because I was worried as why a YORUBA MAN will be making that much money in Igboland through DECEPTION.

I will go online back then and query why normal human beings will give a percentage of their salary to someone who was doing far better than most of them.

I saw them as mad or mentally unstable people.

I was very young and naive. Quite understandably.

But here is the mystery.

I have grown up, travelled out of the country and settled down to a very good life.

Every month though, I change a part of my small salary and send to the Church of David Oyedepo. A sizeable amount of my small money for his mission works. Without him asking me for a dime.

Same thing I fought against vehemently both online and offline.

I have not met him before. I have not attended his church before.

I am not under any mental, spiritual or emotional manipulation. Trust me on this.

Who can explain this?

What happened to me?

"Who can explain this?" The best answer is God can

"What happened to you"? The best answer is you change a part of your small salary and send to the Church of David Oyedepo. A sizeable amount of my small money for his mission works. Without him asking you for a dime. Same thing you fought against vehemently both online and offline.

You are also not under any mental, spiritual or emotional manipulation. Of which you are certain and expect us to trust you on that. All this is what happened to you.

Boomark:
Is the screenshot now difficult to post? That's what I use to catch 666 people.

See example of your "ma laa Dy" and ment ha pobem.

You didn't start twisting today or maybe poor understanding is the problem. See the date. That's before you ever asked me any question. Did you answer the one I told you to ask yourself. You will soon be passing the answers to me if you don't run like you brother Ken4...

Screenshot 1
After reading from the challenge thread, you twisted my stance to mean the bolded. I was like why are people so 'wee keh di.' Poor understanding + medulla oblongata wereyrism. I have to start explaining to you what you read and didn't understand.

Screenshot 2
That is trinity destroyer. I hope you answered the question. You will soon present your answer to me.

Post the screenshot and brace yourself. I will answer your question and you MUST answer mine.

ah you are still replying to that Julia, I have blocked her since, can't be having a conversation with someone who doesn't read what she is responding to

Boomark:
Their belief and misinterpretation of the scripture is shameful. See here where he said it and I have asked him to clearly state the name of the person but he has refused to do that.

https://www.nairaland.com/8486945/bible-challenge-trinity-boomark-image123/6#136510501

When I say trinity doctrine is from the antichrist I know what am saying.

lol just read it, not surprised.

Image123 you say God has a God
Should it not be your god has two gods

Jashub:
I asked a question at the end of my previous post . Kindly answer that first . Thank you

If you know the question you should have shared it

Meanwhile did you answer my question, "did you read it?"

Wait did you even ever answer any of my questions.

Also, this is your previous post, "I made the correction on the verse . Secondly, you certainly did not read the prayer of Daniel; kindly read it and see that the context of his prayers were that of children inheriting the punishment of parents.
And for your information, Ezekiel , Jeremiah and Daniel were contemporaries." And there's no question here, at least you should know your previous post

Jashub:
I made the correction on the verse . Secondly, you certainly did not read the prayer of Daniel; kindly read it and see that the context of his prayers were that of children inheriting the punishment of parents.
And for your information, Ezekiel , Jeremiah and Daniel were contemporaries.

do you know the meaning of contemporaries, being alive when someone else is doesn't necessarily you their contemporary, while Jeremiah ministered those men, especially Daniel was but a boy.

It's not like this information is even needed or necessary, because God answered those words through Ezekiel that he isn't punishing those who repented from their ways and concerning your mention of Daniel words. The nation was destroyed by God, when God gave it back to them he enable them to be able to rebuild it.

Ask you, did God punish the children for the sins of their fathers? Did Daniel say that they the children who were exiled were innocent?did Daniel repent or not? Should that not be simple questions for you to answer. 😊

Truvelisback:
It is not about what many feels, it is the truth. Except your Bible is saying otherwise. Isaiah confirmed it.

oh I guess you want to quote that place that seems to say in some English interpretation bibles concerning the mighty God mentioned in Isaiah, a verse that someone no new testament author quoted.

Nevertheless the less that same verse as a different interpretation from the Jewish septuagint, maybe that's why the apostles never used it 🤷🏾‍♂️