Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I do feel all the books were written before the 1st century was up along with what’s suggested with some of the other above links by Push, but the compilation of the bible (which books go where, and which books are supposed to be included), wasn’t done until a couple or so centuries after Christ’s death.

Before there was a basic consensus of bible canon, there were several branches of ‘Christianity’ some of which had beliefs that are wildly opposed to the bible as we know it today. Often times in history, might makes right and political powers drive processes that impact large populations, so why would bible canon be any different? What is there to suggests that the process of bible canon was divinely inspired. [/quote]

That is a great question.

To my knowledge when the councils/Bishops of the time came together to discuss the cannon they struggled with which boods to include and which to not include. I would like to stick to the New Testament because there is differing opinions of the Old Testament cannon. Just to touch on the Old Testament the Hebrews have a cannon similar to Protestant Churches, and the Catholics have an Old Testament derived from the Septuigent. The septuigent dates to about 200 years before Christ while the Hebrew cannon dates to about 30-60 years after Christ. The apocrapha as some say do not change the meaning of the Bible, just add some history IMO.

The New Testament the leaders of the time had all the different manuscripts written at the time, and they had to look at the authenticity of the doctrine and who wrote them. If they were not apostles they would throw them out. Revelation some beleive that it is John the apostle and some beleive it is another John, but then that brings me to my second point. The doctrine of the NT was passed down from the apostles so they looked for books/letters that followed what they had been taught. There were a lot of agnostics/gnostics of the time and many false doctrines that permeated the church. It was necessary to cannonize the Bible so the Church could be unified in their beleifs. You could go from one church to the next and get the same doctrine. The Book of Revelation when you read it does not change any doctine written about through out the New Testament so they decided to include it. It was a Revelation to John whomever that might be, but it is spot on to the doctrine of the New Testament and the teachings of the Apostles. As you will see from these threads there are a lot of different Christian backgrounds from Catholic to Protestant. We all believe in the Trinity, and the infalible word of God. You have the old agnostics/gnostics in the Jehovahs witnesses in this thread, but as I said earlier are rejected by the church, and this is why the Bible was cannonized. I know this is very skin deep, but I hope it helps a little.

I found this video rather interesting- “The Forgotten Gospel”
Warning, it is rather long.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8528017404238696916&ei=Fz-lS6f5MoiWqALfzqHaBw&q=The+forgotten+Gospel#

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And that sums up Body’s tactics -

why do you believe this . . .(because of these passages) . … well, you’re out of your depth, your bible is corrupted . . .

or to sum it up even plainer

interrogative - response - derogatory comment - repeat[/quote]

With all due respect, if you think I’m going to go out and start writing a thesis, and otherwise annotate and footnote what is already a considerable body of work, you’re crazy. This is all old hat. Do you think Spart is making up his posts? That it’s his scholarship and opinion? Where do you think this all leads? To agreement? If the stuff Spartiates brings up and the things I hint at are news to you, I suggest you either continue your personal quest for truth or, you stop where you are and stop engaging in discussions where dispute is invited since it upsets you so much. Your beliefs are fine by me. They do me no harm. I wish you no harm.

[/quote]

But you ask us to do what you are not willing to? Why?

Spartiates can translate till he is blue in the face and CLAIM his translation changes the meaning. But apparently, as soon as someone asks for an EXPLANATION of why he thinks this, he’s too busy.

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

You are correct. it is simple construction. And so Is 1:14. That is precisely my point. You are telling me that John is not claiming Jesus was divine by using your “reason/logic” translation. My point is that even with the substitution, 1:1 and 1:14 clearly show John stating Jesus is divine.
[/quote]

1:14 is not such a simple construction. That’s why most English translations have that awkward bracketed statement in them.

Do you want a clear translation or a literal one? As soon as you ask for a clear translation, you’re asking the translator to decide for you what something means where’s there’s ambiguity.

“And the logos became flesh and camped in us, and we beheld of the view, the view of one by the father, full of the quality of pleasure and truth.”

The author doesn’t even mention Jesus until 1:17[/quote]

Interesting, why did you use view instead of glory. The greek word that I see in no way implies the word view. Using the traditional strong’s lexicon I find this.

G1391
�´�¿�?�¾�±
doxa
dox’-ah
From the base of G1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literally or figuratively, objectively or subjectively): - dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship.

However I did find this definition and can see view as being apart of it.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1391&cscs=Jhn

However of all the times it is used in John none of them from what I can tell would use the word view as the translation. So why would the author change his style?
The only problem is it doesn’t jive with the rest of the verse. In particulare this

G3439
�¼�¿�½�¿�³�µ�½�·�?�?
monogeneÃ??s
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).

That word is used 9 times in the NT and all nine times it referes to a physical person.
The phrase always refers to a son or child as well.

[/quote]

I would still like to find out why you translated it this way vs. the traditional way when you consider the information I posted.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seriously, this isn’t complicated. It’s plainly stated.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

The Word/the One and Only, whose Father is God, who was there from the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among them. Now what else did it say about the Word/One and only. Ah, full of grace and and truth. But wait, wait, what name is given to the flesh which is dwelling among them? The flesh through which this grace and truth comes? Jesus…

It’s so plainly stated that I can’t begin to figure out how this became a topic.[/quote]

I agree. But apparently Spartiates thinks his translation, somehow, completely changes the meaning. I’m just not seeing it.
[/quote]

I really don’t have time to write out and justify a translation at this moment… I’m supposed to be working. If this thread is not a million posts down the line, I’ll come back later.

The bottom line is that the logos: logical reason, is the subject of John here, not Jesus. The logos was there at the beginning with the divine, now the logos has been made accessible to us: made flesh, and is “camping” inside us. The old customs were given through Moses, but now through the teachings of Jesus, the logos will replace the old customs, i.e. logic and reason will replace mysticism (animal sacrifice, food rules, all that other OT stuff).

The logos is what’s divine, and was begotten by the father, not Jesus. Jesus is a teacher. Check out 1:20 is you want Jesus himself to back me up.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but your paraphrasing of the translation is allowing for you to distort too much. If you want to play translator, give us a precise, accurate translation that doesn’t end up using some of your own words to fit your position. Then we can talk about that translation, and that translation ONLY and compare it to the NIV or whichever and see just how yours makes the meaning completely different.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]
I read the link. I cannot see for the life of me how it helps your position. [/quote]

Read it again, apparently you missed the grammer portion.

[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…

…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[/i]

These verses make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Word, the Word is the Creator, and the Creator is Almighty God. There’s no dancing around it. It is a loaded Mack truck and it will run you over.[/quote]

To be sure, these verses DO NOT make it crystal clear.

…the One and Only… <—is the only begotton son of God. Look up what that is.

The addition of the article “a” was specifically made to accommodate the cult of Jehovah’s Witness - to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. By the way, let’s cut out the screwing around here, Senor C.T. Russell and followers, deity and divine mean God.[/quote]

Not even close to true.

The doctrine of the Trinity goes clear back to Genesis 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness… and threads its way throughout Scripture all the way through Revelation. It is THE central tenet of Christianity. Without it your belief system is nothing more than what I called it before - a cult.[/quote]

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]
I read the link. I cannot see for the life of me how it helps your position. [/quote]

Read it again, apparently you missed the grammer portion.

[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…

…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[/i]

These verses make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Word, the Word is the Creator, and the Creator is Almighty God. There’s no dancing around it. It is a loaded Mack truck and it will run you over.[/quote]

To be sure, these verses DO NOT make it crystal clear.

…the One and Only… <—is the only begotton son of God. Look up what that is.

The addition of the article “a” was specifically made to accommodate the cult of Jehovah’s Witness - to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. By the way, let’s cut out the screwing around here, Senor C.T. Russell and followers, deity and divine mean God.[/quote]

Not even close to true.

The doctrine of the Trinity goes clear back to Genesis 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness… and threads its way throughout Scripture all the way through Revelation. It is THE central tenet of Christianity. Without it your belief system is nothing more than what I called it before - a cult.[/quote]
[/quote]

Honest I hate when my posts turn out this way. Which are your new posts? If you have to all caps I am ok with it and will not think you are yelling. I want to know your thoughts on this.

dmaddox [quote]
pushharder [quote]
honest_lifter [quote]
pushharder [quote]

[/quote]

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

I read the link. I cannot see for the life of me how it helps your position. [/quote]

Read it again, apparently you missed the grammer portion.

[quote]
[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…

…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[/i]

These verses make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Word, the Word is the Creator, and the Creator is Almighty God. There’s no dancing around it. It is a loaded Mack truck and it will run you over.[/quote]

To be sure, these verses DO NOT make it crystal clear.

…the One and Only… <—is the only begotton son of God. Look up what that is.

[quote]
The addition of the article “a” was specifically made to accommodate the cult of Jehovah’s Witness - to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. By the way, let’s cut out the screwing around here, Senor C.T. Russell and followers, deity and divine mean God.[/quote]

Not even close to true.

[quote]
The doctrine of the Trinity goes clear back to Genesis 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness… and threads its way throughout Scripture all the way through Revelation. It is THE central tenet of Christianity. Without it your belief system is nothing more than what I called it before - a cult.[/quote]

Honest I hate when my posts turn out this way. Which are your new posts? If you have to all caps I am ok with it and will not think you are yelling. I want to know your thoughts on this.[/quote]

I fixed it for you D. Missed a couple quotes :slight_smile:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
dmaddox [quote]
honest_lifter [quote]
pushharder [quote]
honest_lifter [quote]
pushharder [quote]

[/quote]

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

I read the link. I cannot see for the life of me how it helps your position. [/quote]

Read it again, apparently you missed the grammer portion.

[quote]
[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…

…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[/i]

These verses make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Word, the Word is the Creator, and the Creator is Almighty God. There’s no dancing around it. It is a loaded Mack truck and it will run you over.[/quote]

To be sure, these verses DO NOT make it crystal clear.

…the One and Only… <—is the only begotton son of God. Look up what that is.

[quote]
The addition of the article “a” was specifically made to accommodate the cult of Jehovah’s Witness - to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. By the way, let’s cut out the screwing around here, Senor C.T. Russell and followers, deity and divine mean God.[/quote]

Not even close to true. [/quote]

[quote]
The doctrine of the Trinity goes clear back to Genesis 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness… and threads its way throughout Scripture all the way through Revelation. It is THE central tenet of Christianity. Without it your belief system is nothing more than what I called it before - a cult.[/quote]

Honest I hate when my posts turn out this way. Which are your new posts? If you have to all caps I am ok with it and will not think you are yelling. I want to know your thoughts on this.[/quote]

I fixed it for you D. Missed a couple [quote]s :slight_smile: [/quote][/quote]

I am definitely no Greek scholar. I tried to take ancient greek twice in college and dropped the class twice after the first test. I am horable in English also. That said.

I see your point on the two scriptures on the definite article, but I will say that Paul never claimed to be God, and Jesus did. Any early translator would lean in this direction because of these claims by both individuals.

I still would like to hear your thoughts on the Genesis chapters 18 and 19 on who is Jehovah though.

Gosh I suck at posting. what are all the rules and crap you have to type. I fail.

(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

I see your point, but if we rely on that God inspired the writers to write the Bible, we have to rely on God’s inspiration on the translators to translate correctly. So in saying that by using the two examples that you used, I am going to go with the translators ability to translate correctly as we have had it for centries than your new translation brought about in about 1950 to fit your doctrine.

I really want to know what your thoughts are on Genesis chapters 18 & 19 and who is Jehovah. Is it 3 people, 2 people, 1 person, or is your translation incorrect on this part?

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

So, based on Segment 1 of your article, would the following then not be an acceptable variation?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “a” god, and the Word was “a” god.

For some reason that article didn’t give this third variation and chooses to only put the indefinite before the second usage. Obviously since “the” is used before “Word”, it makes it a definite. Since there is no Greek definite before either appearance of “god”, shown by the fact the English “the” isn’t applied, shouldn’t an “a” be place before BOTH usages of “god”, not just the last one? This makes “god” in the passage an indefinite altogether, and not THE God.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

I see your point, but if we rely on that God inspired the writers to write the Bible, we have to rely on God’s inspiration on the translators to translate correctly. So in saying that by using the two examples that you used, I am going to go with the translators ability to translate correctly as we have had it for centries than your new translation brought about in about 1950 to fit your doctrine.

I really want to know what your thoughts are on Genesis chapters 18 & 19 and who is Jehovah. Is it 3 people, 2 people, 1 person, or is your translation incorrect on this part?[/quote]

D, note that you said you are going to trust the translation you use (NIV). When was that published?

Don’t say one is right and one is wrong until you looked into it. Get the blinders off, seriously, and do the work yourself into researching what is correct. We are commanded to do that at Acts 17:11.

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

You need to examine the scripture and in this case make sure that the translation is correct.

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

So, based on Segment 1 of your article, would the following then not be an acceptable variation?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “a” god, and the Word was “a” god.

For some reason that article didn’t give this third variation and chooses to only put the indefinite before the second usage. Obviously since “the” is used before “Word”, it makes it a definite. Since there is no Greek definite before either appearance of “god”, shown by the fact the English “the” isn’t applied, shouldn’t an “a” be place before BOTH usages of “god”, not just the last one? This makes “god” in the passage an indefinite altogether, and not THE God.
[/quote]

John 1:1 literally translated from the above:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word

NOW, what about the 2nd irregularity?:
“with the god” which also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

What did John (thinking in Greek) mean by “with the god?” He used the Greek Definite article. Therefore, he meant his God, the one and only God Almighty. (In the NEW TESTAMENT, this Greek construction (““god”” preceded by the Greek definite article) ALWAYS means the one and only God Almighty.) However, it sounds strange to the English speaker! English speakers with a Christian background ROUTINELY refer to the one and only God almighty as simply “God!” There is no need for the definite article here to convey to the English speaker what John (thinking in Greek) meant…

Therefore, the translator may again apply his “glue:” “with * god.” (The red asterisk here simply reminds us, for the sake of this discussion, that “glue” was applied, by virtue of the omission of a definite article.)

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

That’s why I like the ESV version. They went to the original language texts and did word for word translations only altering enough to make it readable. It’s the closest thing to reading the original languages your going to get with out learning them.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

That’s why I like the ESV version. They went to the original language texts and did word for word translations only altering enough to make it readable. It’s the closest thing to reading the original languages your going to get with out learning them.[/quote]

Acts 28:6 (ESV)

They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

…was a god <— indefinite article

John 1:1 (ESV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…the Word was God <— no indefinite article

Both have the same Greek structure, but have different English translations.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jehovah’s Witness attacks on Jesus

* If Jesus is God, then who did He pray to?
* If Jesus is God, then why did not know the time of His return?
* If Jesus is God, why did He say the Father was greater than He?

http://www.carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses[/quote]
All of the information in the links you provided about Jehovah’s Witnesses is far from the truth. Of course people are going to attack my religion because we regularly expose that most of the Christian doctrines. We’re used to the attack and we expect it and know that none of it is true.

The link that you provided before this one that supposedly answers questions like why did Jesus pray to God?, why did Jesus say the father was greater than he? and why did Jesus say only call God Good?, are all week and nothing new. People who believe in the Trinity can see that when Jesus was on earth he clearly distinguishes himself from God and states that God has greater authority so Trinitarians explain this by saying Jesus was being humble or the week reason provided in that link. Like I said in other post there are clear scriptures that distinguish between God and Jesus before Jesus came to earth and after he went to heaven that clearly show that Jesus is not God Almighty. So we don’t have use any scriptures where Jesus is on earth to show that God and Jesus are two different beings.

Daniel 7:13,14(NIV) is one such scripture.
"13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

This is a prophecy written before Jesus the “son of man” came to earth and the Ancient of Day who gives him the Kingdom is none other that God. The Son of Man cannot be God because he approaches God and God makes him king over the kingdom that Jesus told us to pray for.

So how could Jesus be called a god, a diety and divine? Again the Bible clearly states this at Isaiah 9:6 which was written before Jesus came to earth.
Isaiah 9:6,7(NIV) states:
“6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.”

Jesus is clearly called “Mighty God” but he is also called “Prince of Peace.” The title of “Prince” would never be given to God Almighty. One might ask if Jesus is given the title of Prince then why is he also called King of Kings? If you look at Daniel 7:12,13 these verses show that God gives Jesus a Kingdom that he rules over as king. Is this on God’s throne? No, because Isaiah 9:7 states that Jesus will rule on his forefather David’s throne not God’s throne. God anointed David as king ane he ruled over God’s people right here on earth. David’s dominion did not extend into the heavens. This is exactly what Jesus kingdom will do. Jesus’ kingdom will be a heavenly kingdom that will rule over God’s people on earth. So he will still be a king but he will also be subject to God as 1 Corinthians 15:28 states which would make him a prince under God.

If the above is not enough to prove that Jesus was divine in nature but still different from God then Phillipians 2:5-8(NAB, the Catholic Bible orginators of the Trinity doctrine) should.

"5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross."

The above verses clearly explain how Jesus could be divine, a diety and called god. They also show that before Jesus came to earth he was distinctly different from God and not equal to God.

Is it any different when Jesus goes back to heaven after he is resurrected? No. Just before Stephen is stoned he catches a glimpes of heaven. Does Stephen see Jesus sitting on God’s thrown as God Almighty himself. Absolutely not. Does Stephen see the holy spirit which is supposed to be an equal part of the Trinity in heaven? Absolutely not.
Act 7:56, 57 (NIV) states:
"54 When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Come on now. I shouldn’t have to say anymore. All of the scriptures I used was from translations that we don’t use and none of them are from the gospels when Jesus was on earth. They clearly show that Jesus was prophecied to be called god but never is he given the title of God Almighty, it is prophesied that Jesus would be given a kingdom by God and he would rule on David’s throne; not Gods. They clearly show that before Jesus came to earth he was in God’s form as a spirit being and when he went back to heaven he was in God’s form at his right hand.

So yes Push the pre-human Jesus is mentioned all throughout the Hebrew scriptures. None of the links you provided are as clear as the scriptures I used above or the below scripture:
1 Corinthians 15:24-28(NIV):
“Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

Bury me with scriture Push, come on. Try to explain any of the scriptures above. I’m betting you’ll again run and hide on the “Serious Relgious Debate thread.”

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]

So, based on Segment 1 of your article, would the following then not be an acceptable variation?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “a” god, and the Word was “a” god.

For some reason that article didn’t give this third variation and chooses to only put the indefinite before the second usage. Obviously since “the” is used before “Word”, it makes it a definite. Since there is no Greek definite before either appearance of “god”, shown by the fact the English “the” isn’t applied, shouldn’t an “a” be place before BOTH usages of “god”, not just the last one? This makes “god” in the passage an indefinite altogether, and not THE God.
[/quote]

John 1:1 literally translated from the above:
in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word[/quote]

Literally translated from what, exactly. My example, or the verse you posted previously?

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
(I will start a new one without quotes, that was messy)

The point is this:

The Bible should not be translated based on the opinion of the translator. Translating the Bible is a very serious endeavor and should not have a biased upon writing it to influence the end result.

[/quote]

I see your point, but if we rely on that God inspired the writers to write the Bible, we have to rely on God’s inspiration on the translators to translate correctly. So in saying that by using the two examples that you used, I am going to go with the translators ability to translate correctly as we have had it for centries than your new translation brought about in about 1950 to fit your doctrine.

I really want to know what your thoughts are on Genesis chapters 18 & 19 and who is Jehovah. Is it 3 people, 2 people, 1 person, or is your translation incorrect on this part?[/quote]

D, note that you said you are going to trust the translation you use (NIV). When was that published?

Don’t say one is right and one is wrong until you looked into it. Get the blinders off, seriously, and do the work yourself into researching what is correct. We are commanded to do that at Acts 17:11.

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

You need to examine the scripture and in this case make sure that the translation is correct.

[/quote]

HL, as stated in the other thread, 17 Christian translations as found on Bible.cc show that the NIV is the exact same on John 1:1 stating the “Word was God.” Only yours and two others which you guys can not prove are Christian translations or which church uses it states “was a god,” and the other two translations are not on Bible.cc. I would say I have examined every Christian translation because they all say “Word was God.” Nothing more to research.