Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on October 06, 2009, 11:54:43 pm
-
Conservapedia, that great bastion of Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law) has finally decided that they've had enough of accusing Hollywood, the media and every source they can find of Liberal bias and decided to go after the biggest selling example of Liberal bias in existance, the Bible.
Yep apparently the King James Version displays a large amount of Liberal Bias and thus needs to be rewritten.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Excuse me while I fall about laughing. :lol:
-
Old....and not that funny.... :sigh:
Try harder k?
-
Not funny? It's freaking hilarious. :p
-
Seconded; pretty funny even by that site's standards.
Also, was this recently linked in a news article or something? Because my friend just posted the same thing on Facebook.
-
Boing Boing picked up on it a few days ago.
-
Is this stuff they write real?
I thought the Bible was the Word of God. Apparently only the parts you like are. The rest was inserted by Liberals.
-
Hard to tell on Conservapedia.
-
That's why I linked to Poe's Law.
-
Hahahaha, "Pro Liberal terms such as Government", that one needs some rethinking. Seriously though, this is right up there with; GAY!!!!!> http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/~gauntlet/eg/eg2/20041125/spongebob-web.jpg (http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/~gauntlet/eg/eg2/20041125/spongebob-web.jpg)
-
Not funny? It's freaking hilarious. :p
ROFL.
-
Words cannot express my hate for Conservapedia. I mean, it's funny, until you realize that there are people who actually take that stuff seriously.
-
I'm not sure it's possible to take that article seriously. . .
I mean, does anybody really!?! O_O
The socialism section?
-
Words cannot express my hate for Conservapedia. I mean, it's funny, until you realize that there are people who actually take that stuff seriously.
IMO that makes it even more funny, in a dark sort of way. How I weep for our future.
-
It's pure brainwashing. A bunch of adults having homeschooled kids write articles about how liberalism is evil, and anything not written in the Bible is treason and heresy. It's really disgusting.
-
Those who are wise will not be effectively brainwashed. Even if religious fundamentalism reaches critical mass, the dark ages didn't erase all the knowledge of the Roman Empire.
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
-
Is this stuff they write real?
I thought the Bible was the Word of God. Apparently only the parts you like are. The rest was inserted by Liberals.
God didn't speak english.
-
I know that. The matters I'm referring to aren't translation-related.
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
They got owned by the Mongols instead, lucky for us.
As for the original topic, Liberator is wrong, this is indeed very funny. :D
-
Old....
Yes and no. First there was the "Bible Retranslation Project", but then Teh Assfly (Andy Schafly, owner of Conservapedia, as referred to by his nemesis RationalWiki) realized that would actually require work and that he's not capable of reading Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. So it fell by the wayside.
This new one, the Conservative Bible Project, doesn't even have the minimal legitimacy of an effort to translate differently, it's simply altering the words they don't like with no regard to original text or translated text.
This would be not terribly funny in many other contexts, the textual record can be very fragile (cf. this (http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully01.htm)), except that they're boldfaced about what they're doing and their utter lack of authority in the subject, and thus hopefully anyone with enough neurons to form a synapse will ignore it.
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.
I suspect that was his point.
-
I just keep waiting for someone to turn up the lost first page containing the following:
This work is purely fictional. All likenesses to any people living, dead, or resurrected contained here in are purely coincidental.
-
I think I've just lost a little bit more of my faith in humanity...
-
You can go join Nuke in the club.
I had the (mis?)fortune of stumbling across this site while looking for debate evidence on NCLB. It said something about how illegal immigrants will move into our suburbs and lower our standardized test scores, and that they were Teh Satanz.
That is flippin' hilarious though.
-
*facepalm*
Ironic therefore funny. I have sincere doubts that conservapedia is legitimate, even if it is as a Christian it doesn't affect me. These are people's opinions and frankly it's rooted in ignorance.
A thought I can see them trying to rewrite (presumably Solomon's) Ecclesiastes, throughout the whole thing it's written from someone who almost sounds like a skeptic, that is, until the end. Even some Jewish scholars doubted the validity of the book. It happens to be one of my favorites. :lol:
-
its both SAD and Funny!
although it is sad to know that there are people whom will believe this book to be true, and I pity their souls :sigh:
-
OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization. While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.) KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB. Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.
Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite. The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church. An example would be John 1:1. New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god. Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God." But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage. - Read a couple post down, I didn't remember this right.
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.
Always found that tidbit of knowledge interesting. :)
-
I have a feeling if Jesus showed up today some of the radical Christian wingnuts would be the first in line to want to nail him back up on the cross. I don't really think they are buying what he's selling :P
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.
That was...exactly my point?
-
OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization. While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.) KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB. Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.
Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite. The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church. An example would be John 1:1. New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god. Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God." But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.
I think that the validity of existing translations is kind of beside the point, actually. These people aren’t approaching the project from a standpoint of linguistic or theological rigor, they’re literally changing the text to say what they think it should say. The existing translations may be flawed, but the changes proposed by this project can only take the text further away from the original. I don’t think you can give them a pass for their motives if their plan for "fixing" the Bible introduces even more inaccuracies.
-
OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization. While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.) KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB. Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.
Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite. The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church. An example would be John 1:1. New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god. Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God." But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.
I think that the validity of existing translations is kind of beside the point, actually. These people aren’t approaching the project from a standpoint of linguistic or theological rigor, they’re literally changing the text to say what they think it should say. The existing translations may be flawed, but the changes proposed by this project can only take the text further away from the original. I don’t think you can give them a pass for their motives if their plan for "fixing" the Bible introduces even more inaccuracies.
I tried to say in my post that they don't need to touch it. I'm not clear sometimes but I did make a generalization. :p Because you are right they will only bring it further from the truth. But my linguistics rant was just that a rant not a justification. They are only justified in questioning modern translations not rewriting their own.
The generalization I was talking about was they were attempting to rewrite the original text not a translation. Sorry ;)
-
Not funny? It's freaking hilarious. :p
Peter Griffen? :p
-
I have a feeling if Jesus showed up today some of the radical Christian wingnuts would be the first in line to want to nail him back up on the cross. I don't really think they are buying what he's selling :P
that is sooo true, like you don't even know how true that is.
-
OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization. While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.) KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB. Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.
Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite. The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church. An example would be John 1:1. New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god. Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God." But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.
that isn't entirely true...
in greek the words are:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
theos meaning god;
ho meaning this, that, these, etc.
and logos meaning word.
there are many gods, but there is only one YHWH, so to differentiate, it was common in the time to use the word "the" before theos, when referring to YHWH, however the greek word for the is not present.
its like saying dirt is earth, do you mean dirt is the earth (the planet), or do you mean that dirt is is earth (soil)?
it also helps to remember that in the first century, Christians still used the hebrew name of God, Yahweh (can also be pronounced Jehovah). they didn't simply refer to God as god, because there where many gods worshiped at the time, and it could confuse the people they would preach to.
really it could be translated either way, but, seeing as how something can't be with something and be something, many, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, have translated it as "The word was with God and the word was a god".
-
Wikipedia explains it better:
Grammar
A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, set out by Greek scholar E.C. Colwell, which states:
"In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."
At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. [15]
On the other hand Philip Harner commented [16]
The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, "the Word was God." The New English Bible has, "what God was, the Word was." Good News for Modern Man has, "he was the same as God." The problem with all of these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.
By clause A Harner meant "that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable". So he concluded that
"In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Interestingly, Origen of Alexandria, who was a teacher in Greek grammar in the third century wrote about the use of the definite article here:[17]
"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God......The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."
It might suggest that an ancient Greek reader could take the anarthrous noun theos applied to the Word as indefinite. The Coptic translators comtemporaries to Origen seemed to understand it in the same sense. For instance, The SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1 says :
Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute Auw neunoute pe pshaje
A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:
In the beginning existed the word And the word existed in the presence of the god And a god was the word
The Coptic noun "noute" means "god". Also, unlike the ancient Greek and latin the Sahidic Coptic language had an indefinite article. Here those translators used the definite article "p" for the first theos (as the Koine Greek does), but they used the indefinite article "u" before the second theos. Unlike the English language, this indefinite article may be also applied to mass nouns, which could not be translated into English. Accordingly, some have argued that "noute" in John 1:1c should be regarded as a mass noun, thus it would suggest that this noun should be taken as purely qualitative, rather than indefinite. So according to this view the translation should be "The Word was Divine". Nonetheless, others have argued that here "noute" is a count noun, thus the Coptic indefnite article is the same as the english indefinite article.
Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun "noute" in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god." For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has "a god." Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives "a god" for the literal interlinear translation of "u.noute" in his grammar book, "Coptic in 20 Lessons," page 7. (Peeters, Leuven, 2007)
Coptic grammar does not apply the term "qualitative" to nouns. But it does recognize adjectival usage of nouns, in which case, if the context called for it, "u.noute" could be rendered into English as "divine." However, at John 1:1 in Coptic, we have a distinction between "p.noute," or "the god," i.e., "God" in English, and another entity, the Logos or Word (Shaje in Coptic) identified as "u.noute," or "a god." Whereas "divine" could fit here as a paraphrase, there is no contextual or grammatical reason to overlook the entirely proper literal translation, "a god."
-
Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!
Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.
That was...exactly my point?
Sorry, misunderstood.
-
I'm sorry after going back and freshening up on this subject, your absolutely right there is no article the word Theos and is anarthrous. It is not %100 proven grammatically that it is a definite theos but it is suggested and often the determinate is usually a church's doctrine. Which is the point of my post to question the translation. I was in a hurry and couldn't remember if the Theos was anarthrous I thought it wasn't but it definitely is. They did not ignore the Greek as I stated earlier rather translated the verse according to their doctrine.
E. C. Colwell discovered that definite predicate nouns (in this case Theos) which precede the verb usually lack the article. Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.
A man named David Wallace who wrote (Greek Grammer Beyond the basics) pointed out that Colwell's rule alone is not enough to support the claim that it is definite. Colwell's rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this structure does not make the noun definite. Wallace argues that it is not definite but qualitative emphasizing nature the word is of the same nature as God (Trinitarian.)
Wallace thinks that a definite theos indicates a ancient form of Modalism or Sabellianism which is a believe that Jesus is the same numerically as the Father. I happen to believe that the scriptures teach just that. Not just Wallace believed this but many other Greek scholars such as Westcott, A. T. Robertson, Lange, Chemnitz, Alford and even Martin Luther.
The problem with Wallace's view on qualitative Theos is that John had options to convey just that. He could have easily left theos anarthrous and still put it after the verb, thus retaining the qualitative sense that Wallace argues for. So it was not necessary to place it before the verb merely for that reason. The fact that he chose to put it before the verb and to the beginning of the phrase would seem to indicate emphasis (The Word WAS God.) I agree with Wallace, that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite theos, but it most definitely supports it.
I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this. The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later. Anyway that one's free :p
Now the question is now what version of the bible do we use? Well just as Jews and Gentiles did back then they had the Greek and it was clear for the 1st century church on how to interpret it. I believe that what we must do now is KNOW where we stand and how to find the grammatical-historical interpretation of the bible and choose accordingly. Contrary to how I may sound, I'm tolerant of Jehovah-Witness's I had a friend who I loved to debate with. The problem is we could never decide what to argue about she always wanted to talk about Hell (which is very interesting, btw) and I wanted to talk about the Godhead (the state of being deity/God.) :D
In the end God is the judge and whatever you believe just be ready (and I use that with faith that your a rational being), unless you believe in a form of Calvinism, then... just wait. :p
That one's free too. :D
Verse 14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
-
Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.
Translating as the Jehovah's Witnesses have doesn't necessarily imply that the second term of Theos is definite, what implies it is the context.
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
logos en pros ton theon --------- word/logic was with god (accusative, definite, in other words specified)
kai theos en ho logos ------- and god (nominative, not definite) is this/the Word.
like saying: the commander is with (specified, or The) King, king (not specified, or a) this commander is.
is someone read this, it would be understood that the commander is a king, but not the king of the writer's country. or at least, a king in a difference sense.
mostly because it wouldn't make any sense to understand the text as:
the commander was with The King, The King was the commander.
the two phrases in the sentence contradict.
I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this. The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later. Anyway that one's free :p
im sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
are you saying that John didn't believe in a Trinity when he wrote this?
-
wow, that is actually, out and out heresy, I never knew they had it in em.
-
The Bible was being rewritten before it was even written. The way I see it, they're just partaking in Christianity's oldest scholarly pastime.
-
Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.
Translating as the Jehovah's Witnesses have doesn't necessarily imply that the second term of Theos is definite, what implies it is the context.
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
logos en pros ton theon --------- word/logic was with god (accusative, definite, in other words specified)
kai theos en ho logos ------- and god (nominative, not definite) is this/the Word.
like saying: the commander is with (specified, or The) King, king (not specified, or a) this commander is.
is someone read this, it would be understood that the commander is a king, but not the king of the writer's country.
mostly because it wouldn't make any sense to understand the text as:
the commander was with The King, The King was the commander.
the two phrases in the sentence contradict.
I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this. The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later. Anyway that one's free :p
im sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
are you saying that John didn't believe in a Trinity when he wrote this?
The verse is hard to understand. Because it seems to say that God is the subject but also separate from it. Unless as you pointed out we read it wrong. I have no reason to believe that the subject of the word was a created deity so I won't assume it (Isaiah 43:10-11.) Therefore, we have to remember that it does not say "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." We are not talking about two different persons in this verse. But with something abstract a word/idea/concept.
I don't believe John was a Trinitarian. The doctrine just doesn't exist in the bible. Instead the Jews were strict Monotheist, there is One God and God is one. Not 3 separate and distinct "persons" with one nature. That is a borderline belief in three Gods the only reason it's not is the vagueness of the term "persons"
Shema Israel YHWH elohanu YHWH echad, "Hear O Israel, Yaweh is our God. Yaweh is one" (Deut. 6:4)
"God is one" (Galatians 3:20)
"Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).
"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).
"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).
"There is none beside me. I am the LORD and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:6).
"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22).
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).
"I will not give my glory unto another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also Isaiah 42:8).
And Jesus is God in the flesh (as a man) "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16; see verse 15 for further confirmation that God is the subject of verse 16). God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. That happened all with Jesus.
The Greek word pros, translated (with) in verse 1, is the same word translated "pertaining to" in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. John 1:1 could include in its meanings, therefore, the following: "The Word pertained to God and the Word was God," or, "The Word belonged to God and was God." This could be how the passage is supposed to read.
I could also argue that the logos is not a person if the word pros (with) meant "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if it is first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word does not refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with" or "pertaining to" but not "in a face to face relationship." in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word.
In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed. I believe that the word of God (logos) is simply a reference to the expression or plan of God. The translation logos as a person comes from the preconceived notion of the Trinity.
I could go into more specifics on the Oneness theology if you want. :)
-
Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.
-
Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.
Now that's an idea that deserves some serious consideration...
-
Would never work. Just about every section would contain the following:
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
-
You know, we should all strive to get at least one edit in there.
How about . . . Pontius Obama?
Oh wait, too liberal.
Or maybe Noah had to build an ark to escape a supernova.
-
LOL Colbert just did a segment about it.
-
If John wasn't a trinitarian, and I agree with you there, why would he say that the word is God? why would you translate John 1:1 as such?
you're right, the trinity doctrine was invented many years later, most likely after Constantine's conversion, but if the trinity doctrine isn't biblical, why would anyone translate it "The Word was God" when the sentence loses its coherency?
the logical translation is "the Word was with God, and a god was the Word", or, "The Word belonged to God and a god was the Word." simply because that is what makes the most sense.
But yes, it could be translated as "the Word was with God, and The Word was God", but that doesn't make any logical sense, unless you believe in Trinity, which, according to you, isn't biblical.
-
Let's just make the entire Bible a wiki.
Now that's an idea that deserves some serious consideration...
Filioque
-
Like I said above, it doesn't lose coherency if the definition of Logos is a plan and expression of a plan. When trying to determine what John was trying to say you look at the audience. John's gospel focused mainly on the diety of Christ throughout his entire book. He equates Jesus to God many times as do the other writers of the Gospel:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [spoken, revealed] him" (John 1:18)
He came to His own creation and to His own chosen people but they did not recognize Him or receive Him (John 1:10-11)
He is God veiled in flesh (Hebrews 10:20). As Abraham prophesied, probably without understanding the full meaning of his own words, "God will provide himself a lamb" (Genesis 22:8). God indeed provided a body for Himself: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5)
In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God. (In his mind) The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). The Logos pre-existed the son BUT the son had a beginning. The expression of that plan was also God himself. The word (expression of the plan) was God and the word became flesh and dwelt among us as the man Jesus. (verse 14)
Trinitarians often equate logos with Son, which logically doesn't make sense. Like you are trying to point out. I do not believe that is the case.
Another reason that I don't believe it makes sense for John 1:1 to read word was a god. Was because there is no evidence that Jesus was a "lesser" deity. The reason they interpret this is because Jesus said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did Jesus mean that He was greater than Himself? On another occasion He said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does" (John 5:19-20; See also 3:32). We have one showing, and one doing. He plainly said of His own ability, "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30). Even the words Jesus taught were first given Him by the Father (John 12:49-50). We have one giving, and one receiving. All such statements draw a distinction between Father and Son. Because of this I can see why Jehovah witnesses would believe that Jesus was a lesser diety. But it was specific to his days as a man.
7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety -Hebrews 5:7.
As a man, Jesus prayed to God, not to his humanity. He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God, to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits the universe. Almost as if God took on a separate consciousness when he became a man.
Now the question is will I ever get any work done now that I spent this much time writing this :p
-
Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.
-
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
-
As such, it must be edited to be unbiased.
joking
-
Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.
It was a nice discussion and I don't blame you for assuming, many people don't know what they believe or why and I assumed I think twice in this thread alone. :p I'm always willing to learn something new so I have a good understanding of the things that I believe. ;-) Thing about God is it takes assumptions to have faith He exist. As far as the criteria of adequacy is concerned it's not as superior of a theory as the belief in a purely natural world. Mainly because you must assume He exist and my reasons are purely philosophical. You seem to know a lot about the subject that's not rare around here but not common either. Did or do you study this?
-
In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God.
I take it after all this time he/she/it still hasn't figured out central planning doesn't work......
-
In the Beginning was the plan, and the plan was with or it could mean pertaining to God.
I take it after all this time he/she/it still hasn't figured out central planning doesn't work......
I'll let you decide? Even though it sounds like you made up your mind.
-
Alright, let me try to figure out exactly what they're trying to do here...
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
True fact: Jesus drove an F-250 Superduty and owned six shotguns, three handguns, and two AR-15's. He actually turned water into refreshingly smooth Budweiser and Coors, and every woman he "cast demons out of" HE ****ED 30 TIMES A MINUTE...BUT THE LIBERALS FORGOT TO INCLUDE ALL THAT! THEY TURNED THE MESSIAH INTO A WATER-WALKING, WINE-DRINKING, HOMELESS, STREET-WALKING FRENCH PUSSY! REWRITE THAT ****!
Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
I wonder how that conversation went...
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: Dude, this is the word of God, isn't it?
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: Yeah, of course it is. That's what the almighty Schlaffster taught us to believe.
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: Yeah yeah, I know. God made the whole world didn't he? It's a pretty complex world out there...
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: I don't get what you're trying to say...
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: I'm saying if God is that complex, why is the Bible so simply-written and easy to understand? We're not idiots!
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #2: Well, you see, back in the medieval times, not a lot of people were that educated, and Martin Luther's translation into Germ--
ANDREW_SCHLAFFY: AH HA! Martin Luther! SOUNDS LIKE NOTHING BUT A LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO TO ME! HOW DARE HE DUMB DOWN THE WORD OF GOD TO A 7th GRADE READING LEVEL! I DEMAND A REWRITE.
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1/2: *uneasy glances at each other*
ANDREW_SCHLAFFY: WELL WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, ADMINS?!
CONSERVAPEDIA ADMIN #1: ...none of us here are above a 7th grade reading level, sir...
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
So, how many people is that sit around in Gamblers Anonymous and say they got their start from "casting lots"? Probably the same ones who enter AA because of the communion wine. And of course, regarding the census, Conservapedia must take steps to abolish the obvious census fraud perpetrated by POMEGRANATE, the progenitor to ACORN.
Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
Alright, first three words: Accept the Logic.
This whole project just fell apart.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
...right. Like the Parable of the Good Investment Firm.
Or Jesus condemning cap and trade.
Or the part where Jesus gave the food to the rich and just let the bread and fish trickle down.
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
Y'know, stories about mercy and forgiveness, and all that stuff. That's gotta go.
Credit Open-Mindedness
This must be a typo.
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
This is easily the wordiest sentence on the whole page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=Oh+Jesus+Christ+the+Irony&fulltext=Search&ns0=1)
-
Angry much?
-
Oh it was plenty cathartic.
-
Nuclear1 pwns another hapless victim......
-
Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.
It was a nice discussion and I don't blame you for assuming, many people don't know what they believe or why and I assumed I think twice in this thread alone. :p I'm always willing to learn something new so I have a good understanding of the things that I believe. ;-) Thing about God is it takes assumptions to have faith He exist. As far as the criteria of adequacy is concerned it's not as superior of a theory as the belief in a purely natural world. Mainly because you must assume He exist and my reasons are purely philosophical. You seem to know a lot about the subject that's not rare around here but not common either. Did or do you study this?
Just noticed this little side-topic, so I thought I'd add a post on here, I hope no-one minds. I'm not a specialist on the Bible, its verses or translation, although I guess I have more than a passing interest in religion/spirituality. I'm currently reading Karen Armstrong's "A History of God", which in part covers the concept of God as a Trinity. The Trinity concept seems to have been introduced to portray God as being more complex and mysterious than perhaps the Bible suggests, if I'm remembering what I read correctly.
I've also read some of Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament." He compares selected verses from several different translations (King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Living Bible, Today's English Version and New World Translation) and explores the accuracy and bias within the translation of those verses. He also gives a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of using different translation approaches such as lexical, literal and "dynamic equivalence" translation methods. He claims he's a committed historian (not a theologian, so that suggests he doesn't have a bias in a theological regard; I'm not sure if he has any personal religious beliefs) with knowledge of Koine Greek and how people living during the days of the New Testament would've likely interpreted it, so he puts forward the idea that he's a neutral investigator on this subject. I picked it up because I think it's interesting to see why some Christians stick to particular translations over others, and because the author seems to have an unbiased view on the subject.
I haven't finished all of the book yet, but on the subject of John 1:1-2 he concludes that the NWT has the best, but not the most perfect, translation ("...and the Word was a god"), although he personally says he would've chosen the word "divine" in place of "a god", to establish God and Jesus as being of the same "class" of being.
On the subject of the logos, I thought I'd include this extract as to why he reckons John chose that noun.
To many modern Christians, living in their safe, homogenous world of like-minded believers, the issue seems straightforward. There is the one God, and on the other side of a great gulf are all of the creatures. But in John's world, the god-category was not as sharply distinguished as it is for modern Christians, and there were all kinds of beings occupying the gray area between God and mortals. There were various angels and demi-gods to consider. Not that the New Testament writers and other early Christians accepted the exact same definition of these categories as their non-Christian contemporaries and potential converts did. But in reaching out to this audience, one had to start with shared language and concepts, and build a new understanding from there. Indeed, in Paul's letters and the anonymous Letter to the Hebrews, these other beings are a big concern, as the Christian writers argue for Christ's superiority over them. Whatever these biblical authors knew to be true, they had to communicate it within the concepts of their audience as much as possible. You can move readers to new understandings and insights, but to do so you have to make contact at some point with something they already know or believe to be true. That is the challenge particularly of religious communication.
One being on the borderline between God and the rest of creation in ancient thinking was the logos, believed by certain Jews and Greeks alike to be the creative, ordering energy, thought, or speech by which the universe is made and sustained. John picks this already known concept as the key to explaining Jesus' super-human status and character. It was a brilliant choice, because the relation of the logos to God, according to those who discussed the concept among both Christian and non-Christian thinkers, is as close as can be without simply disappearing into God, and yet not so distinct as to alienate those committed to monotheism (for example, Philo, the Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul). Christians still disagree about how to interpret John's language, and how to make it fit precise physical and philosophical categories of being. Some even question whether trying to make it fit something so technically precise is a worthwhile endeavor. But wherever these lines of interpretation go, it was John who took the first crucial step towards understanding Jesus to have a divine quality within him, which John identified with the ordering principle, the logos, of God.
A failure to grasp the nuance of John's thought can be seen in how several translations inappropriately introduce the male pronoun "he" into John 1:1-2. In John 1:1 both the TEV and LB use the pronoun "he" for "the Word" at some point to reduce the redundancy of John saying "the Word" three times. A similar substitution of "he" can be seen in John 1:2 in the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB and the AB. In this case, "he" replaces houtos, "this one." By using "he" instead of "this one," all of these translations suggest that "the Word" is a male of some sort. The AB and the LB seem to reveal the erroneous thinking behind this translation choice, when they simply substitute "Christ" for "the Word." But the Word is not Christ in the Gospel according to John. The Word is a divine being intimately associated with God that at a point in time "becomes flesh," and only then, when the Word is flesh, can one say we are dealing with Christ. The Word, as we have seen, is not really a "he." It is a divine being or agency that transcends human qualities. It becomes (or becomes a part of) a "he" by "becoming flesh" as, or in, Jesus Christ. Only the KJV and NW accurately maintain John's careful, non-personal language for the Word in this phase of its existence, before it "becomes flesh" and, in the progress, becomes a "he."
I have no doubt that the wording of John 1:1 is careful and deliberate in its every detail. John was doing a very tricky thing: trying to express Jesus' exalted status without violating monotheism. This has been a challenging task throughout Christian history, and John was the first person to tackle it. I think we owe it to him, therefore, to stick as closely to his words as we can, and not contort them into something else.
As to the Conservapedia article, I feel that concepts of conservatism or liberalism shouldn't be applied to the scriptures in order to change them to make it appear as though one man-made ideology is supported more than another. That stems from my opinion that religion should be kept completely outside of politics and vice versa, otherwise one's religious beliefs can end up being directly imposed on others.
P.S. In case you're wondering, I can't say that I'm religious, but I guess I'm somewhat spiritually aware and open-minded to religious points of view.
-
Lostlama:
I think that was a very interesting read, thanks for posting. I agree with him that the "he" introduced into translations is a mistake and I believe comes from the masculinity of the term Logos, in turn Trinitarians would say it was a person. I also completely agree with John's use of Logos was deliberate for it's recognizable meaning in Greek philosophy and thought which considered logos to mean that reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe.
Philo of Alexandria and many others (Jehovah Witnesses) came to interpret logos as a lesser being, which I do not believe the bible teaches. IF John was saying the word was with God and the word was a god. Then yes. But there are plenty of other scriptures refuting Jesus as a lesser diety and more as God himself. (the word was God aka incarnation)
The problem Christians have is to determine how to reconcile the passages linking Jesus as God and also Jesus separate from God. Trinitarians are on one side of the extreme, saying that there are three seperate persons in the Godhead. Modalistic Monarchianism is the other extreme showing no distinction between Father and Son. Oneness I believe avoids the Achilles heel of properly placing the distinction between Father and Son. The nature of Christ is one that has been debated over for centuries and Paul even knew of it's difficulty to understand calling it a great mystery, but also revealing it in the same breath. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…" (I Timothy 3:16) We can know the mystery of God and the Father, which is Christ (Colossians 2:2; see also the NIV and TAB). In fact, Paul also explained this mystery by saying that in Jesus Christ dwells all the wisdom, knowledge, and fulness of God (Colossians 2:3, 9). The mystery of God has been revealed to us by God's Spirit (I Corinthians 2:7-10).The mystery of God in flesh was a great stumbling block to the Jews. They never could understand how Jesus, being a man, could also be God (John 10:33). Because He claimed to be God they rejected Him and sought to kill Him (John 5:18; 10:33).
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:27-28)
Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"). Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").
Jesus is even seen to be Yahweh Himself in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 40:3 prophesied that a voice in the wilderness would cry, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD" (Yahweh); Matthew 3:3 says John the Baptist is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Of course, we know that John prepared the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the name Yahweh was the sacred name for the one God, the writers of scripture would not apply it to anyone other than the Holy One of Israel; here it is applied to Jesus. Isaiah prophesied that the glory of the LORD would be revealed to all flesh (Isaiah 40:5). Since Yahweh said He would not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11), we know He could only fulfill this prophecy by revealing Himself. Indeed, we find in the New Testament that Jesus had the glory of the Father (John 1:14; 17:5). He is the Lord of glory (I Corinthians 2:8). When Jesus comes again, He will come in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38). Since Jesus has Jehovah's glory, He must be Jehovah. When Paul, (the educated Jew and the Pharisee of Pharisees) the fanatic persecutor of Christianity, was stricken on the road to Damascus by a blinding light from God, he asked, "Who art thou, Lord?" As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)
There are so many I can't go through them all but I've done a few in my other posts as well. In any case you see my point. :)
-
As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)
but how do we know that?
YHWH is not present in the preserved New Testament writings, it was replaced with the word Kyrios. although we can safely amuse that they used some pronunciation of YHWH, evidenced by the Septuaginta, we honestly don't know when in the original greek scriptures was the name Jehovah is used.
-
As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)
but how do we know that?
YHWH is not present in the preserved New Testament writings, it was replaced with the word Kyrios. although we can safely amuse that they used some pronunciation of YHWH, evidenced by the Septuaginta, we honestly don't know when in the original greek scriptures was the name Jehovah is used.
I think you misunderstood my line of reasoning. I'm aware that the word kyrios was used instead of the tetragrammaton and that there is no way grammatically to tell when God is spoken of in the New Testament unless of-course it was quoted from the Old. Basically what I'm saying here is that... who else would Lord be to a devout Jew? He was a pharisee and a persecutor of Christians and their movement. He believe in only YHWH of the Old Testament. When he asked who are you Lord? It's only logical that he wasn't concerned about anyone but YHWH.
Jesus is the equivalent of YHWH of the Old Testament above is just one example, here are some others.
Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace." The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father."
Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called Immanuel, that is, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23).
YHWH is our only creator:
Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
"I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,
Isaiah 45:8
8"Drip down, O heavens, from above,
And let the clouds pour down righteousness;
Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit,
And righteousness spring up with it.
I, the LORD, have created it.
Isaiah 48:13
13"Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
Jesus is our Creator:
1 Corinthians 8:6
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (Not Father, Son, Holy Spirit - Meaning if Jesus is God then they revered Him as the Father) from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
John 1:3
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16
16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
YHWH the First and the Last:
Isaiah 41:4
4"Who has performed and accomplished it,
Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last I am He.'"
Isaiah 44:6
6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
Isaiah 48:12
12"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
Jesus the first and the last:
Revelation 1:8
8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Revelation 22:13
13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
There are the same parallels with the terms Almighty, Rock, Horn of Salvation, Shepherd, King of Glory, Light, Lord of lords, Holy One, Only Savior, Giver of Spiritual Water, King of Israel, ect. But there is really no escaping the fact that the bible does indeed teach that the One God of the Old Testament is Jesus of the new. Now either the bible is just mistaken or there is faulty logic in believing that Jesus is a separate deity than the Father or YHWH of the Old Testament.