It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

page: 17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 12:08 PM
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
It's not a complicated question, let me rephrase it. What makes you think the picture I shared a link to (that fragment) is showing a part of Deuteronomy 32:8 (with the bottem line supposedly being the ending of that verse)? Since that's the only piece of supposed evidence that I can find that is proposed as being a part of Deuteronomy 32:8 and showing the phrase "sons of God" (fragment 4QDeutq is irrelevant, don't even understand why Heiser brings it up in relation to Deuteronomy 32:8, but then again, the same could be said for 4QDeutj, so how much evidence for the rendering "sons of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8 based on the DSS does that leave?). Are you even willing to consider that neither fragment is showing any sort of rendering for Deuteronomy 32:8 (conclusively or otherwise*)? *: Those are 2 questions.
edit on 15-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

(post by TerriblePhoenix removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:57 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

one can be mature and still not possess wisdom or intelligence. True wisdom comes from God and his preservd word.

Looks Like once again gnosisisfatih has been banned in his latest ATS user acct TerriblePheonix

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 10:50 PM
Look at the way this Heiser fella talks about Dueteronomy 32:8:

Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number seventy in Deuteronomy 32:8 and have furnished support for textual scholars who argue against the "sons of Israel" reading.

Lol, there is no number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8. So why would you need an explanation from what he later refers to as Ugaritic mythology (in the next sentence)? And these are the supposed honest scholars arguing that the DSS provide evidence that Deuteronomy 32:8 says "sons of God"? They can't be straight and clear about anything related to this subject. Their evidence doesn't work when someone is diligent enough to at least have a short look at the fragment they're using (which has no indication whatsoever that it's from Deuteronomy 32:8) and their arguments are all heavily steeped in theosophy and Pagan mythology (their eisegesis of verse 8).

Why are these types of 'scholars' going through so much trouble to misrepresent the evidence (including those who respond without addressing that the DSS don't provide any evidence for the rendering "sons of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8 when they are disagreeing with that rendering; those who say that there is a textual variance with the DSS in their footnotes and bible commentary when there isn't one)? Why are so many bible translators going along with this rendering for Deuteronomy 32:8 (ESV, ISV, NHEB, and if you count variations including the eisegesis terminologies related to this subject such as "heavenly assembly": NLT, NET)? Might it be part of a plan of someone else to create confusion and mistrust in real biblical research and bible translators that actually are trying to be honest and show the real important errors and deliberate changes, additions, removals of key words or theologically biased choices in bible translations and copies for which the evidence is as clear as crystal, leaving a nice trail of breadcrumbs regarding the real deceptions* involving verses such as 1 John 5:7, 1 Tim. 3:16 and John 1:1? (*: deliberate or inadvertent including self-deception)

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - Wikipedia:

This stuff about Dt 32:8 is a nice Don Quijote Windmill Giant to conquer for those who stick their heads in the sand regarding the evidence of the 3 verses I mentioned (and more verses like it and the more than 6000 times God's name Jehovah has been substituted for "the LORD", "God", "hashem", or even more deceptively "the Lord" in various bible translations by translators not being honest about the biggest conspiracy on the planet, the spiritual war against Jehovah).

The Created Messiah part 1
Part 2 has some confusing inaccurate terminology.
edit on 15-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:37 AM
And these are the people like Michael S. Heiser that a significant portion of society looks to when it comes to debunking conspiracy myths that are obviously bogus and a nice distraction from some real truth seeking bible research (including history of bible translation issues and the real conspiracy I mentioned at the end above)?

Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia:

Michael S. Heiser is an American biblical scholar and Christian[1] who has criticized ancient alien astronaut theorists.
Heiser has spoken out critically against proponents of ancient astronauts theories, especially Zechariah Sitchin. Heiser was featured in Ancient Aliens Debunked as an expert on the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern texts.[5][6]

What an propagandizer of himself and marketeer of theosophy that tickles a portion of society's ears (appeals to them). Which includes anyone who likes to think the bible is too vague to be sure about what it even said originally, any bible critic that would want to undermine or argue aganist its credibility, reliability and accuracy regarding reality, or those who prefer their own human traditions in theology and cherrypick what they want to consider as words from God. Encouraging people not to look any deeper into that by cunning misinterpretations of what God meant when he said he would preserve his Word.
edit on 16-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:19 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
Coptic John 1:1 -- Ambiguous?

According to Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, the Greek text of John 1:1 is, grammatically, not a difficult verse to translate. "It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p. 132) Dr. BeDuhn would render the Greek of John 1:1c literally as "and the Word was a god," or in "a slightly polished" variant carrying the same meaning, "and the Word was divine." According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

The same conclusion can be readily drawn about the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c. This is a fairly literal translation of the Greek, made in the 2nd or 3rd century of our Common Era, at a time and place where the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language and widely understood in Egypt.

In regular Coptic syntax, auw neunoute pe pSaje means, straightforwardly, "and the Word was a god." And just as the Greek sentence at John 1:1c may express a qualitative force, the Coptic syntactical unit which corresponds to that Greek sentence may express an adjectival force. In other words, both may also be rendered as "and the Word was divine." (Cf. Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2006/7, pp. 7, 34) But is this ambiguity? No, for as Dr. BeDuhn states, both translations carry "the same basic meaning."

Still, some scholars are not satisfied with even their preferred "qualitative" meaning for John 1:1c, unless they can define "qualitative" as synonymous with "definite." For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996, p. 269) prefers a qualitative rendering for John 1:1c, but then goes on to say that "and the Word was God" is the simplest, most straightforward translation. That is a non sequitur.

John 1:1c is not carrying on a Greek philosophical dissertation about "persons" or "essences." But it is making an important distinction between "God" (Greek, ho theos; Coptic, p.noute) and another entity whom John describes simply with the Greek word theos (Coptic, ou.noute). The noun theos in the Greek of John 1:1c is pre-verbal and anarthrous. The noun noute in the Coptic of John 1:1c is in a regular indefinite syntactical unit. The force in both cases is the same: the Word is being distinguished from God, not identified as being God.

Further, John 1:1b emphasizes that this Word is "with" (Greek) or "in the presence of" (Coptic) God.

If, as some Trinitarian scholars assert, the idea of a qualitative rendering highlights the "nature" or "characteristics" of the Word rather than his identity, but this Word shared all the attributes and qualities that God (= the Father) has, then logically, the Word would be the Father. Yet, mainstream Trinitarians deride that idea as Sabellianism or modalism, "heresies" condemned by the church.

Is Coptic John 1:1 ambiguous? Not at all. But to be sure, it is the Trinitarian scholars who are forcing John 1:1 to be "ambiguous," not the Greek nor the Coptic text. The Greek text is not definite ("the Word was God") and neither is the Coptic text. Both the Greek and the Coptic texts agree that "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," which mean essentially the same thing.

Source: John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions

Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia:

"A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious."

"What's Athanasius Got to Do With It?

Another of the basically irrelevant Trinitarian objections against translating the Sahidic Coptic of John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god" -- which is clearly what it literally says -- is that the Coptic translators could not possibly have "meant" to say that.

The reason given is that the dynamic 4th century Coptic scholar, theologian, bishop and "saint" Athanasius was the staunch adherent of Trinitarianism. And the Coptic Church itself is Trinitarian.

That argument may be of some value in refuting the inaccurate charge that everything Coptic must, by definition, also be Gnostic.

But it has no bearing on positively identifying the theology of the 2nd or 3rd century Sahidic Coptic translators, and no bearing on identifying their possible theological presuppositions while translating John 1:1.

Coptic scholar and translator George W. Horner, in his classic Coptic New Testament English translation, postulates a 2nd century date for the Coptic New Testament. Other scholars, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary give a 3rd century date.

Coptic Church tradition also dates the Coptic New Testament to the 2nd century, "under the supervision of St. Pantaenus [late second century] and St. Clement [160-215]." Therefore, it is quite possible that the Sahidic Coptic translation of the Gospel of John predated Athanasius [300-373] by a couple of generations.

So, what's Athanasius got to do with it?

And as for the Coptic Church, it has not always been a Trinitarian church. Its tradition ascribes its founding to the Gospel writer "Saint" Mark, and there is nothing Trinitarian in Mark's Gospel.

Besides, there was another famous (or infamous, according to one's view) presbyter and theologian in 4th century Alexandria, Egypt. His name was Arius, the noted opponent of Trinitarianism, whose doctrine "was once at least as popular as the doctine that Jesus is God." (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, p. 7). Before Nicea (325 CE) many Coptic and other bishops considered Arius' theology to be "orthodox."

So, IF a case could be made for Athanasian Trinitarian influence upon the Sahidic Coptic translators, a similar case could be made for Arian, non-Trinitarian influence.

In point of fact, however, the Sahidic Coptic translators are anonymous. We don't know who they were. Therefore, it is impossible to state dogmatically what their theological presuppositions were, or even if their theological presuppositions influenced their translation of John 1:1.

It is just as likely that they simply made a fair, honest, and accurate translation of John's Greek as they understood it: ne.u.noute pe p.shaje, "And the Word was a god."

Attempts to link Athanasian Trinitarianism to the Sahidic Coptic translators is shown to be just another smokescreen put up by apologists for whom Coptic John 1:1 is extremely unsettling and inconvenient."

So since the evidence is so clear and unambiguous that John 1:1c says "and the Word was a god" and not "and the Word was God", why is this ignored by everyone arguing for or translating it as such? Why the dishonesty described above? Can anyone give me some pointers how I might see it wrong in concluding that the descriptions in the bible of this dishonest hypocritical behaviour such as at Mark 7:7 by Jesus quoting Isaiah about hypocrisy are spot on? And that not being able to get a response to this is likewise spot on with the descriptions of wilfull ignorance?

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:36 AM
a reply to: whereislogic
Just remember that the text above were all quotations from the sources given, I don't know how to use the "ex" or "quote" commands when I'm already quoting from an earlier comment. The button doesn't work properly for me, it won't show the text then until after the "/quote" or "/ex" command.
Isaiah 23 (click this link for footnotes and references to related verses, the + and * symbols):

8 Yes, it will be just as when someone hungry dreams that he is eating,

But he wakes up hungry,*

And as when someone thirsty dreams that he is drinking,

But he wakes up tired and thirsty.*

So it will happen with the crowd of all the nations

That wage war against Mount Zion.+

9 Be stunned and amazed;+

Blind yourselves and be blinded.+

They are drunk, but not with wine;

They are staggering, but not from alcohol.

10 For Jehovah has poured a spirit of deep sleep on you;+

He has closed your eyes, the prophets,+

And he has covered your heads, the visionaries.+

11 Every vision becomes for you like the words of a sealed book.+ When they give it to someone who can read, saying: “Read this out loud, please,” he will say: “I cannot, for it is sealed up.” 12 And when they give the book to someone who cannot read, saying: “Read this, please,” he will say: “I cannot read at all.”

13 Jehovah says: “This people approaches me with their mouth

And they honor me with their lips,+

But their heart is far removed from me;

And their fear of me is based on commands of men that they have been taught.+

14 Therefore, I am the One who will again do wonderful things with this people,+

With wonder upon wonder;

And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,

And the understanding of their discreet men will be hidden.”+

15 Woe to those who go to great lengths to conceal their plans* from Jehovah.+

Their deeds are done in a dark place,

While they say: “Who sees us?

Who knows about us?”+

16 How you twist things!*

Should the potter be regarded the same as the clay?+

Should what is made say about its maker:

“He did not make me”?+

And does what is formed say about its former:

“He shows no understanding”?+

edit on 1-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 09:14 AM
Sometimes a theologically contested verse is cleared up by context in the preceding or following verses, to me this is very clear.

John 1:18

No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.

1)No human has ever seen Almighty God in Human or spirit form.
2)Big "G" = Almighty God
Little "g" = the son who has the power of a god
3)And if your son is beside you he isn't the same as the father.

edit on 22-4-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 14  15  16   >>

log in