It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566



Oh, yes, nearly forgot. I was trying to explain earlier that the call to "know" God is the call to enter into relationship with him.


how can you enter a loving relationship with someone you dont know?

if god is incomprehensible, there is no way we can know him. there is no way we could possible find out what his will is or his thinking on anything. and yet the bible helps us do just that.


I've tried to explain the difference between "knowing" and "comprehending".
You know your boyfriend and you have a relationship with him, but even there you do not necssarily fully "comprehend" him. and that's just another human.

Anyway, "knowing" God in the Bible is more about recognising him, acknowledging him, being willing to obey him and worship. You can do all these things without fully comprehending him. Look through some examples of "knowing " God in the Bible, and you will see what I mean. See, for example, Jeremiah ch31 v34, where people have been advising each other to "know the Lord". This is NOT about knowing his name. etc. It is about being willing to worship him.

And I repeat, if you really think that your finite human mind is capable of fullly understanding an infinite God, then "your god is too small". Please stop, and think about it. Seriously.

My argument is based on following through the logical consequences of things. This process is essential for all human thought. Your unwillingness to follow through logical consequences undermines your ability to understand.





[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
My argument is based on following through the logical consequences of things. This process is essential for all human thought. Your unwillingness to follow through logical consequences undermines your ability to understand.


my ability to understand derives from reading god's word and accepting what it has to say about god.

this is my point. the trinity is not scripturally sound. i make this claim over and over, and i am consistently rebutted with assumptions and philosophies that are not mentioned in the bible.

i dont think that you are seeing this.

it says something about the trinity. here is a doctrine, that cannot be supported unless great liberty is taken in not only interpreting scripture, but also in assuming certain ideas.

would God really reveal truth in such a haphazard and chaotic way?

why would God expect us to accept statements like "the father and the son are coequal" but then inspire john to write jesus saying "my father is greater than me"?

it makes no sense.

the trinity and other doctrines like it (immortality of the soul, hellfire for example) crept into the church AFTER the apostles.

this was fortold!

2 peter 2:[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

acts 20:[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
[29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
[30] Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

these "added" doctrines are not in the bible becuase they are not from God.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


My claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is scripturally sound starts, as I was saying before, with the scriptural foundation for the divinity of Christ. I have been making my case on that point in previous posts. You need to go back to them so that we can resolve the question.


Incidentally, it is not advisable to quote texts about false teachers and false prophets if you have any connection with an organisation which once proclaimed that Jesus would return in 1914, and which has, ever since then, been forced to proclaim a theory about this 1914 return which is just as tortuous as anything our own theology has produced. How many false prophecies does it take to identify a community of false prophets?

Are you acquainted with the English proverb- "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"?



[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
My claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is scripturally sound starts, as I was saying before, with the scriptural foundation for the divinity of Christ. I have been making my case on that point in previous posts. You need to go back to them so that we can resolve the question.


which unfortunately, the "divinity of christ" is also based on assumption and has little scriptural backing.

matt 27:[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

if jesus has a god, how can he be god?



Incidentally, it is not advisable to quote texts about false teachers and false prophets if you have any connection with an organisation which once proclaimed that Jesus would return in 1914, and which has, ever since then, been forced to proclaim a theory about this 1914 return which is just as tortuous as anything our own theology has produced. How many false prophecies does it take to identify a community of false prophets?

Are you acquainted with the English proverb- "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"?


switching to an attack on an organization doesnt help your case.

out of anger, you can post every shred of AntiJW literature, and it wont bring you one iota closer to proving the trinity.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by miriam0566
 


So there are two things I promised myself to do on this thread this morning.
The first relates to the translations of the Greek texts in John ch8 and Philppians ch2. You were claiming that my understanding of them was based on the literal English. I offered to track down some Greek commentators, on the basis that Greeks could be expected to understand their own language. I also challenged you on whether you would accept the verdict of Greek commentators, but you took no notice of that. Anyway, this begins my part of the bargain.

My first source is John Chrysostom. These are taken from sermons rather than commentaries, but his understanding of the text is obvious enough from the way he treats it. I am finding all these texts on newadvent.org/fathers.

Chrysostom, Homilies on John; relating to John ch8 v58
-----
"He saw my day and was glad". He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at him, so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.
But wherefore said he not "Before Abraham was" instead of "I am"? As the Father uses this expression "I Am", so also does Christfor it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous.
------

This is, I would remind you, the interpretation of a Greek-speaking person, which presumably removes any suggestion that he did not understand the language.
Obviously Augustine is not Greek, but I think it's fair to quote him as
a contemporary supporting view.

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John; the same passage
------
And the Lord; Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am. Weigh the words and get a knowledge of the mystery. "Before Abraham was made". Understand, "that was made" refers to human formation; but "Am" to the divine essence. "He was made" because Abraham was a creature. He did not say "Before Abraham was, I was" bt "Before Abraham was made- who was not made save by me- I am". Nor did he say "Before Abraham was made I was made"... Before Abraham was made, I am. Recognise the Creator- distinguish the creature
------

Finally, back to Chrysostom on the subject of Philippians.
This man understands the disputed word as "stolen property", which is actually on your side of the argument about the exact translation. Score one point to you. On the other hand, he then uses this translation to demonstrate the divinity of Christ, so he comes down on my side of the argument on the point that matters.
In brief, his argument is;
"Jesus did not treat equality with God as stolen property
This is because he was already the rightful owner of equality with God."

But of course I must give you the argument in his own words.

Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians; relating to ch2v6
--------
[Paul] says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the father, who was equal to him, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. Now learn what this means. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, lest it perish and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of that sort will happen to him... If a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down he straightway loses it...Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine...

What does one say, then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from his right, for he thought not deity a prize seized. he was not afraid that any would strip him of that nature or that right. Wherefore he laid it aside, being confident that he would take it up again... For this cause, Paul says not "He seized not" but "He counted it not a prize". he possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe... He did not refuse to lay it aside as one who had usurped it, but since he had it as his own by nature, since it could never be parted from him, he hid it.
-------

Finally, I remind you once again that the divinity of Christ is thus demonstrated from the Greek text of the NT by a Greek speaking person. He knows his own language.










[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by miriam0566
 


I also promised you that I would say something about the way we would progress in developing the Athanasian Creed from scripture.

It won't be possible to get very far before we have established the divinity of Christ, which is the first essential building block.

We could then move on to considering the Docetic heresy, which involved the belief that the physical body of Jesus was not real, but just an appearance, an image.
We would also have to consider the Patripassian heresy, which involved believing that the Father died on the cross.

In order to deal with these, we would have to eatablish the point that Jesus was genuinely human. I think you would have no problem with that. Once we have got the scriptural basis for "Jesus is God" and combine that with the scriptural basis for "Jesus is man", we would then have the scriptural basis for the line in the Athanasian Creed which says "Jesus is God and man". That is what I mean by building it up logically, step by step.

It would also be necessary to establish that Jesus is not the Father (in order to sort out the Patripassians). Again, I think you would have no problem with that. However, let me point out that the statement that "The Son is not the Father" is the meaning of, or one of the meanings of, the Credal statement that "the persons must not be confounded". If you accept that there is a scriptural basis for "The Son is not the Father", we have then established that there is a scriptural basis for the line in the Creed which says that "the persons must not be confounded". That is what I mean by building it up logically, step by step.

The next stage would be to establish that the Spirit is God. You have already conceded that the Spirit is "part of God", and that will do for the moment.

We would then have the four basic building blocks of Trinitarian theology, viz;
The Father is God
The Spirit is God
Christ is God
Christ is Man

This is the first line of "bricks" in the wall.
The rest of the wall is about the exact relationship between those elements, but there is no point in getting on to that until we have established the four elements themseves. We must press on with resolving the question about the divinity of Christ.

I don't think I will be on this thread again this weekend, because there will be a new Revelation thread to look after. If you have any thoughts to contribute up there on the 4 Horsemen of Revelation ch6, I will be pleased to hear them



Incidentally, in reply to a comment posted imediately above, I will remind you about the orthodox teaching that Christ is BOTH God and Man. It is in his capacity as Man that he has a God who is greater than himself.

I would not have brought up the point about prophecies if you had not brought up the line about false teachers. The point was that these things can go in both directions. I will avoid that line of attack if you will.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Miriam, The word through in greek also means by (διά).
John 1:3 says in the NIV that All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.This verse does not say that without him nothing was made through him or by him that was made. It clearly states that without him nothing was made that was made.
There is no way around this scripture.

Col 1:17 He is before all things.This refers to time, as in Jn1:1-2 and 8:58."Eternal"
Seven times in 6 verses Paul mentions"ALL creation" "All things" and "everything" this stressing that Jesus is supreme over all.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
My first source is John Chrysostom. These are taken from sermons rather than commentaries, but his understanding of the text is obvious enough from the way he treats it. I am finding all these texts on newadvent.org/fathers.

Chrysostom, Homilies on John; relating to John ch8 v58
-----
"He saw my day and was glad". He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at him, so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.
But wherefore said he not "Before Abraham was" instead of "I am"? As the Father uses this expression "I Am", so also does Christfor it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous.
------

This is, I would remind you, the interpretation of a Greek-speaking person, which presumably removes any suggestion that he did not understand the language.
Obviously Augustine is not Greek, but I think it's fair to quote him as
a contemporary supporting view.


so instead of just assuming, you are seeking someone who speaks greek and assumes the same as you.

it is an assumption.

there is nothing in the verse or in the context to say jesus is quoting exodus. especially if exodus is saying "i shall be"

as for the translation of "ειμι" (i am)

john 14:[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκας με, - there it is again...
"i am" rendered as "have i been?", but there is no controversy of this verse. why, well the context logically says it should be translated this way. but its also not disputed because the divinity of christ is not at stake.
they translate it "I AM" (in all capitals too) to force a quotation that people who believe christ to be god desperately need despite it making the english translation awkward.

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John; the same passage
------
And the Lord; Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am. Weigh the words and get a knowledge of the mystery. "Before Abraham was made". Understand, "that was made" refers to human formation; but "Am" to the divine essence. "He was made" because Abraham was a creature. He did not say "Before Abraham was, I was" bt "Before Abraham was made- who was not made save by me- I am". Nor did he say "Before Abraham was made I was made"... Before Abraham was made, I am. Recognise the Creator- distinguish the creature
------


i repeat once again. pure assumption.

he tries to point out that john 8:58 does NOT say that before abraham was born jesus was MADE. and he would be CORRECT.

this passage only shows us that before abraham, jesus existed and continues to exist up to now (and beyond, at least until his death). that is ALL this verse is saying.

but he takes some liberty to tell us that "AM" is referring to jesus' "divine essence". the verse does not say that. in fact the verse makes no reference to jesus' creation OR to GOD OR to any divine essence. it simply says "εγω ειμι"


Finally, back to Chrysostom on the subject of Philippians.
This man understands the disputed word as "stolen property", which is actually on your side of the argument about the exact translation. Score one point to you. On the other hand, he then uses this translation to demonstrate the divinity of Christ, so he comes down on my side of the argument on the point that matters.
In brief, his argument is;
"Jesus did not treat equality with God as stolen property
This is because he was already the rightful owner of equality with God."

But of course I must give you the argument in his own words.

Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians; relating to ch2v6
--------
[Paul] says that God, the only begotten, who was in the form of God, who was no whit inferior to the father, who was equal to him, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. Now learn what this means. Whatsoever a man robs, and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, lest it perish and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of that sort will happen to him... If a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down he straightway loses it...Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine...

What does one say, then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from his right, for he thought not deity a prize seized. he was not afraid that any would strip him of that nature or that right. Wherefore he laid it aside, being confident that he would take it up again... For this cause, Paul says not "He seized not" but "He counted it not a prize". he possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe... He did not refuse to lay it aside as one who had usurped it, but since he had it as his own by nature, since it could never be parted from him, he hid it.


great argument, except "Jesus did not treat equality with God as stolen property" is not what the verse says.

"ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,"
"didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
ἁρπαγμὸν its not "stolen property", its "a thing to be stolen"

how do we know? the verse itself provides the context -

"who, although He existed in the form of God"

paul was showing us that by having god's form, if anything jesus would be the first person to be equal to god. but he wasnt.

its this comparative structure that shows what paul was saying.

it wouldnt make sense to say that "although jesus was in the nature of god, he was equal to god."

"although she had training as a teacher, she had to teach" what? the structure doesnt make sense


Finally, I remind you once again that the divinity of Christ is thus demonstrated from the Greek text of the NT by a Greek speaking person. He knows his own language.


ok, but he's still assuming his points.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


It was his native language.
Would you care to track down a Greek -speaking commentator of the period who accepts your interpretation, and we can set them against one another?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Miriam, The word through in greek also means by (διά).
John 1:3 says in the NIV that All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.This verse does not say that without him nothing was made through him or by him that was made. It clearly states that without him nothing was made that was made.
There is no way around this scripture.


yes, by meaning through

"i will write to you by letter"

can also be

"ill write you via letter"

im glad you mentioned john 1:3 too because here is a list of bible that render δι "through"

New American Standard
American Standard Version
Darby Bible Translation
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

why do they do this? because thats what δι means.

strongs says of δι - through, on account of, because of; A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act;

it is through jesus that god created.

1 cor 8:yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


-----------

"without him was not any thing made that was made."

does this statement mean that jesus is god? no.

obviously jesus' creation could not be included in this statement. why? because noone can create themselves.

from the context of col 1:15; AND rev 3:14 we can see that this verse is talking about all things created AFTER jesus. which is the rest of creation.


Col 1:17 He is before all things.This refers to time, as in Jn1:1-2 and 8:58."Eternal"
Seven times in 6 verses Paul mentions"ALL creation" "All things" and "everything" this stressing that Jesus is supreme over all.


well he cant be before god can he? and he cant be before himself right? so what does that leave? all creation.

does this make jesus eternal? no. he is before creation, this would be true if he was created or not.

is he supreme? if he is supreme, he wouldnt have anyone over him right?

1 cor 11:[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 cor 15:Then the end will come. Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father as he destroys every ruler, authority, and power.

jesus is not supreme.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
its this comparative structure that shows what paul was saying.

it wouldnt make sense to say that "although jesus was in the nature of god, he was equal to god."

"although she had training as a teacher, she had to teach" what? the structure doesnt make sense



No, this is not the right way of describing how Chrysostom is using the comparative structure.

His version is more like "Although she had training as a teacher, she was willing to humble herself by working as a cleaner".

[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
It was his native language.
Would you care to track down a Greek -speaking commentator of the period who accepts your interpretation, and we can set them against one another?


we dont need to. a greek person's native language does not mean he is automatically right.

the commentaries you quoted, in themselves lacked any scriptural backing to their beliefs. they assumed several points and i called them out on that.

yet i provide cross references and let the bible explain what the bible is saying.

im sorry to say this but i dont think you see that



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


You have given me Bible references that are all based on the American Standard Version which is textually based on Westcott and Hort Used exclusively by Jehovah Witnesses. Unfortunately This version is no longer in print most likely because it is erroneous and is no longer tenable in the light of newer and fuller textual analysis, and is revised to the New American Standard Version which combines the received text and clearly states Colossians 1:16 (New American Standard Bible) 16For (A)by Him all things were created.
www.biblegateway.com...:16&version=NASB#en-NASB-29482.
All other bibles which do not use versions that are textually based on Westcott and Hort( Thats all you seem to base your theory on ) are the original text or received text which you seem to ignore completely.Even versions like the NASV has realized that the received text is more accurate and has incorporated this into its text.
In other words the bibles that you quoted are out of date, print, and erroneous.
Would you like to discuss Westcott and Hort and why Their textual basis is not used by all ?







[edit on 26-4-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Would you like to discuss Westcott and Hort and why Their textual basis is not used by all ?


would you prefer i just quote from the greek?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Unfortunately This version is no longer in print most likely because it is erroneous and is no longer tenable in the light of newer and fuller textual analysis, and is revised to the New American Standard Version which combines the received text and clearly states Colossians 1:16 (New American Standard Bible) 16For (A)by Him all things were created.
www.biblegateway.com...:16&version=NASB#en-NASB-29482.


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:16 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

"through"

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:16 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
ὅτι ἐν αὐτός κτίζω ὁ πᾶς ἐν ὁ οὐρανός καί ἐπί ὁ γῆ ὁ ὁρατός καί ὁ ἀόρατος εἴτε θρόνος εἴτε κυριότης εἴτε ἀρχή εἴτε ἐξουσία ὁ πᾶς διά αὐτός καί εἰς αὐτός κτίζω

"through"

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:16 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

"through"

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:16 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα τα εν τοις ουρανοις και τα επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

"through"

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:16 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα τα εν τοις ουρανοις και τα επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

"through"

and as i said before, "by" is not an incorrect translation.

i can go "by" car for example. or talk "by" phone.

but δι’ means "through" or "by means of"


All other bibles which do not use versions that are textually based on Westcott and Hort( Thats all you seem to base your theory on )


no, this is what the bible says. all greek transcripts (not just wescott and hort) use the same word.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Would you like to discuss Westcott and Hort and why Their textual basis is not used by all ?


would you prefer i just quote from the greek?



If you could also quote from the original Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic that would be helpful. Dont forget to explain weather your using the the Alexandrian or Byzantine or the many other type texts..

Dont you get it. All of this has been taken into consideration and the reality is that the amount of variation between all this does not fundamentally alter the message of the scriptures one iota that has been taught for thousands of years. You are only concerned with the critical text and what the JW doctrine says.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



and as i said before, "by" is not an incorrect translation.

i can go "by" car for example. or talk "by" phone.


What would be the meaning of the word "by" in common greek of the day in this context.

The Music you hear was recorded "BY" the Beatles
The car you drive is made "BY" Ford.

In this case the word "BY" refers to the maker.
Please use your knowledge of the Greek language to define this, and we will see how this pertains to the scriptures quoted

[edit on 26-4-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil


What would be the meaning of the word "by" in common greek of the day in this context.

The Music you hear was recorded "BY" the Beatles
The car you drive is made "BY" Ford.

In this case the word "BY" refers to the maker.
Please use your knowledge of the Greek language to define this


εν - "by"

but διά is - "through"

since you dont believe me -

Strong's Concordance



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Dont you get it. All of this has been taken into consideration and the reality is that the amount of variation between all this does not fundamentally alter the message of the scriptures one iota that has been taught for thousands of years. You are only concerned with the critical text and what the JW doctrine says.


context is NOT on your side.

there is more scripture and more reason to believe jesus is NOT God, then there is even the suggestion that he is.

i posted the list of scriptures so many times, i would be surprised if you said you havent seen them



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Nope not confused at all, we actually agree that Jesus existed before Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 1:1 is talking about the physical universe.

Miriam already added the details.

You are discrediting a multitude of bible translations just because it disagrees with your church dogma, it's pretty sad actually.

Romans 10:2 again, this time with the footnote *

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.*

Footnote
*They have a zeal of God. They were religious, conscientious, zealous. but mistaken and fanatical.





[edit on 26-4-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join