'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

I might also point out that the Greek reading of “the only begotten God” in John 1:18, is classified in the GN-4 as “B” text. This means this is almost certainly the original Greek textual reading according to the panel of critical textualists. It is not contested by any scholar on these panels (so far).

As yet another contextual point, If Metzger is correct, then “the only begotten God” in this case should be rendered “the unique God”, then the Hebrew nuance I hinted at in post # 337 may correlate to this this early Judeo-Christian worldview :

(Genesis 3:22 LXX) God said : “Behold, Adam has become as one of us…” (ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων...). The great Jew Rashi says this verse in the masoretic tells us Adam became “like the Unique One among us” (notice the Hebrew flavors it differently&#8230.

Historians make sense of such interesting correlations. Especially if they occur over and over and over.

In any case Sonofason ; Greek John 1:1 does, by itself, indicate that “the word” (i.e. the logos) was, in some way, divine (that is, he belonged to a "class" that was a "god" or that he had the quality of being “a God” or "God-like")

Such historical correlations cannot, of themselves, tell us what the real and absolute truth of such matters are, but such textual descriptions can indicate what the ancient Jews and or Christians themselves believed.

Good luck in coming to your own beliefs and conclusions in this life Sonofason.


Clear
φιφιδρσιω

 

[Ingledsva]

So you believe snakes and donkeys spoke?

Actually, I do not believe that snakes spoke, and furthermore the Bible never suggests that snakes spoke. In the garden, it was a serpent that spoke.

And I do not believe that donkeys have the ability to speak, not at least without some outside help. I believe God spoke to Balaam and it had appeared to Balaam that the donkey was speaking. But it was God doing all the speaking. It was the voice of God that Balaam heard.

ING - LOL! A snake is a Serpent. It uses the word "Nachash."

Birds catered to a prophet, feeding him etc?

Yes, I believe God has such power over animals.

ING - Hiding behind primitive magic ideas - My God has magic, he can make anything happen.

There was a world wide flood, covering mountains, only 4,500 to 10,000 or so years ago (depending on denomination asked)?

Yes, I believe the entire earth was covered with water, however I don't know the time frame, and neither do you.

ING - Problem for you on this one is they give a timeline, and other info, - like whole earth, - and water over the mountain tops, - which we KNOW ABSOLUTELY did NOT happen. There would be evidence of such.

A too small Ark that carried two, or seven, of ALL critters?

Yes, I believe what the Bible says.

ING - Again - absolutely MYTH - they give the size of the Ark, and it would not hold a fraction of the critters on the earth. I might add - how did those non-swimming critters from other continents - get to the Holy land - without drowning - before they could get on the Ark - to prevent their drowning?

That three males and three females created all the diversity of humanity in only a few thousand years from that landing date?

Again, I don't know the time frame when Noah lived on this earth, but I believe what the Bible tells of this event.

ING - LOL! Again! - We are given a timeline, and genealogies. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the diversity of humanity could have come about from the timeline of the Ark story.

A man got swallowed by a big fish/whale, for three days, and lived?

Yes, I believe the story of Jonah.

ING - It is a Metaphorical story. There is no way a human can survive without oxygen for more then say, 30 minutes, in a cold water drowning.

How can you believe this myth?

myths are only myths because of the uncertainty of the validity of the story being told. The fact that something is termed a myth in no way signifies that the story is not true. It simply means we have no knowledge of any means of knowing for sure whether or not it is true.

ING - That is purely untrue in myths like these. We know a human can not survive three days in the belly of a sea-monster.

How can you believe a God that murders the innocent for the crimes of others - is actually God?

I know of no instance where God murdered an innocent person. But honestly, I would love to watch you flounder for an answer.

I have a file on this somewhere - but right off the top -


YHVH murders King David's baby for the sins of the parents.


YHVH murders the Egyptian Firstborn, for the sins of their fathers, - and - because Pharaoh supposedly would let the Hebrew go - WHEN in reality - the story tells us YHVH said he was going to MAKE IT so Pharaoh wouldn't let them go. Murder of the innocent - and - murder for something YHVH caused to be! Hummmm?


YHVH murders the innocent in the Flood story because he says humanity has become corrupted - however - infants, young children, the mentally handicapped, etc, are ALL INNOCENT. Thus Murder.



*

 

[Sonofason]

POST TWO OF TWO

I might also point out that the Greek reading of “the only begotten God” in John 1:18, is classified in the GN-4 as “B” text. This means this is almost certainly the original Greek textual reading according to the panel of critical textualists. It is not contested by any scholar on these panels (so far).

As yet another contextual point, If Metzger is correct, then “the only begotten God” in this case should be rendered “the unique God”, then the Hebrew nuance I hinted at in post # 337 may correlate to this this early Judeo-Christian worldview :



Historians make sense of such interesting correlations. Especially if they occur over and over and over.

In any case Sonofason ; Greek John 1:1 does, by itself, indicate that “the word” (i.e. the logos) was, in some way, divine (that is, he belonged to a "class" that was a "god" or that he had the quality of being “a God” or "God-like")

Such historical correlations cannot, of themselves, tell us what the real and absolute truth of such matters are, but such textual descriptions can indicate what the ancient Jews and or Christians themselves believed.

Good luck in coming to your own beliefs and conclusions in this life Sonofason.


Clear
φιφιδρσιω

Thanks for you time posting this answer. It is much appreciated.

 

[Ingledsva]

POST TWO OF TWO

I might also point out that the Greek reading of “the only begotten God” in John 1:18, is classified in the GN-4 as “B” text. This means this is almost certainly the original Greek textual reading according to the panel of critical textualists. It is not contested by any scholar on these panels (so far).

As yet another contextual point, If Metzger is correct, then “the only begotten God” in this case should be rendered “the unique God”, then the Hebrew nuance I hinted at in post # 337 may correlate to this this early Judeo-Christian worldview :

Originally Posted by clearly in post # 337
(Genesis 3:22 LXX) God said : “Behold, Adam has become as one of us…” (ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων...). The great Jew Rashi says this verse in the masoretic tells us Adam became “like the Unique One among us” (notice the Hebrew flavors it differently…).

Historians make sense of such interesting correlations. Especially if they occur over and over and over.

In any case Sonofason ; Greek John 1:1 does, by itself, indicate that “the word” (i.e. the logos) was, in some way, divine (that is, he belonged to a "class" that was a "god" or that he had the quality of being “a God” or "God-like")

Such historical correlations cannot, of themselves, tell us what the real and absolute truth of such matters are, but such textual descriptions can indicate what the ancient Jews and or Christians themselves believed.

Good luck in coming to your own beliefs and conclusions in this life Sonofason.


Clear
φιφιδρσιω

I actually agree with most of this - as written - and as I've already said.


Monogenes, just means singular born, special one, etc.


As I said earlier - a god - can be godly, or a god as they called Judges of Israel.


As the awaited Jewish Messiah - Jesus would be a Special Singular human sent from God for a special mission - as a JUDGE - he was to bring about the end and Final Judgment.


However - it nowhere says Jesus is God/trinity.


Also - John 1:18 only has God once - it says monogenes uihos, only begotten/singular born Son.





*

 

[Sonofason]

ING - LOL! A snake is a Serpent. It uses the word "Nachash."

Sonofason responds:
Well, that is not exactly true. While a snake can be any of numerous limbless scaled reptiles (suborder Serpentes syn. Ophidia) with a long tapering body and with salivary glands often modified to produce venom which is injected through grooved or tubular fangs,

A snake can also be a worthless or treacherous fellow.
Snake - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A snake can be anything resembling a snake in appearance or action.
A snake can be an insidious enemy.
Snake - definition of Snake by The Free Dictionary

Second, while many snakes are considered serpents, not all serpents are necessarily snakes. Consider dragons. They are certainly considered to be serpents, but dragons are not necessarily snakes.

Strong's Concordance defines the Hebrew word used in the Bible (וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ ) as "serpent".

So I believe you are jumping to conclusions by assuming the author intended for us to think of a literal scaly snake. Of course, again, I won't say that's impossible, but it's not as clear as you are tying to make it seem.

Ingledsva continues:

ING - Hiding behind primitive magic ideas - My God has magic, he can make anything happen.

Sonofason responds:
God has the power to create universes. Surely he can make anything happen.

Ingledsva continues:

ING - Problem for you on this one is they give a timeline, and other info, - like whole earth, - and water over the mountain tops, - which we KNOW ABSOLUTELY did NOT happen. There would be evidence of such.

Sonofason responds:
Since you are so sure that water did not cover the entire earth, please provide the evidence that has convinced you that this is not true.

Ingledsva continues:

ING - Again - absolutely MYTH - they give the size of the Ark, and it would not hold a fraction of the critters on the earth. I might add - how did those non-swimming critters from other continents - get to the Holy land - without drowning - before they could get on the Ark - to prevent their drowning?

Sonofason responds:
Please provide some evidence to show exactly what creatures were present on earth when Noah's flood happened.

Please provide evidence to show the exact size of the earth when Noah's flood happened.

Please show evidence to show that there was more than one continent when Noah's flood happened.

Ingledsva continues:

ING - LOL! Again! - We are given a timeline, and genealogies. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the diversity of humanity could have come about from the timeline of the Ark story.

Sonofason responds:
You're going to need to prove that statement as well. Please show how many human beings it takes to produce the diversity we see in humanity today.
Please provide your evidence showing that you know the timeline of the Ark story.


Ingledsva continues:

ING - It is a Metaphorical story. There is no way a human can survive without oxygen for more then say, 30 minutes, in a cold water drowning.

Sonofason responds:
I don't know. I've never been in the belly of a whale. Have you?

Ingledsva continues:

ING - That is purely untrue in myths like these. We know a human can not survive three days in the belly of a sea-monster.

Sonofason responds:
again, I don't know that. You must keep in mind as well, that this event was managed by God, my magic hero.

Ingledsva continues:

I have a file on this somewhere - but right off the top -
YHVH murders King David's baby for the sins of the parents.

YHVH murders the Egyptian Firstborn, for the sins of their fathers, - and - because Pharaoh supposedly would let the Hebrew go - WHEN in reality - the story tells us YHVH said he was going to MAKE IT so Pharaoh wouldn't let them go. Murder of the innocent - and - murder for something YHVH caused to be! Hummmm?

YHVH murders the innocent in the Flood story because he says humanity has become corrupted - however - infants, young children, the mentally handicapped, etc, are ALL INNOCENT. Thus Murder.
*

Okay, you have provided some examples of God destroying seemingly innocent life. Perhaps I spoke too quickly. But perhaps I didn't. Please show me why a newborn child is innocent. Do you know the future of every newborn child?

Is it possible for evil children to grow into evil adults?

Is it possible for evil adults to have grown from evil children?

Why should I consider people that are mentally handicapped to be innocent?

Do the mentally handicapped do no wrong?

If an entire culture is evil, it would be my guess that even the newborns are evil as well.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sonofason responds:
...


Okay, you have provided some examples of God destroying seemingly innocent life. Perhaps I spoke too quickly. But perhaps I didn't. Please show me why a newborn child is innocent. Do you know the future of every newborn child?

Is it possible for evil children to grow into evil adults?

Is it possible for evil adults to have grown from evil children?

Why should I consider people that are mentally handicapped to be innocent?

Do the mentally handicapped do no wrong?

If an entire culture is evil, it would be my guess that even the newborns are evil as well.

And this is the kind of crap you folks have to come up with, to live with/pardon your God's evil actions.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

Sonofason responds:
Well, that is not exactly true. While a snake can be any of numerous limbless scaled reptiles (suborder Serpentes syn. Ophidia) with a long tapering body and with salivary glands often modified to produce venom which is injected through grooved or tubular fangs,

A snake can also be a worthless or treacherous fellow.
Snake - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A snake can be anything resembling a snake in appearance or action.
A snake can be an insidious enemy.
Snake - definition of Snake by The Free Dictionary

Second, while many snakes are considered serpents, not all serpents are necessarily snakes. Consider dragons. They are certainly considered to be serpents, but dragons are not necessarily snakes.

Strong's Concordance defines the Hebrew word used in the Bible (וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ ) as "serpent".

So I believe you are jumping to conclusions by assuming the author intended for us to think of a literal scaly snake. Of course, again, I won't say that's impossible, but it's not as clear as you are tying to make it seem.

...

LOL! Dude - why are you going to modern dictionaries?


The word is NACHASH - which is snake/serpent.


We can actually trace the word's transition from India where it started as Naga - snake.


Which interestingly - is what they called their Sorcerers.



*

 

[Katzpur]

The word is NACHASH - which is snake/serpent.

Of course, NACHASH could not possibly taken metaphorically, could it?

 

[firedragon]

I actually agree with most of this - as written - and as I've already said.


Monogenes, just means singular born, special one, etc.


As I said earlier - a god - can be godly, or a god as they called Judges of Israel.


As the awaited Jewish Messiah - Jesus would be a Special Singular human sent from God for a special mission - as a JUDGE - he was to bring about the end and Final Judgment.


However - it nowhere says Jesus is God/trinity.


Also - John 1:18 only has God once - it says monogenes uihos, only begotten/singular born Son.





*

May I know whats the Septuagint you use pls? John 1:18 doesnt say Monogenes Uihos.

 

[firedragon]

Sonofason responds:
Well, that is not exactly true. While a snake can be any of numerous limbless scaled reptiles (suborder Serpentes syn. Ophidia) with a long tapering body and with salivary glands often modified to produce venom which is injected through grooved or tubular fangs,

A snake can also be a worthless or treacherous fellow.
Snake - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A snake can be anything resembling a snake in appearance or action.
A snake can be an insidious enemy.
Snake - definition of Snake by The Free Dictionary

Second, while many snakes are considered serpents, not all serpents are necessarily snakes. Consider dragons. They are certainly considered to be serpents, but dragons are not necessarily snakes.

Strong's Concordance defines the Hebrew word used in the Bible (וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ ) as "serpent".

So I believe you are jumping to conclusions by assuming the author intended for us to think of a literal scaly snake. Of course, again, I won't say that's impossible, but it's not as clear as you are tying to make it seem.

Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
God has the power to create universes. Surely he can make anything happen.

Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
Since you are so sure that water did not cover the entire earth, please provide the evidence that has convinced you that this is not true.

Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
Please provide some evidence to show exactly what creatures were present on earth when Noah's flood happened.

Please provide evidence to show the exact size of the earth when Noah's flood happened.

Please show evidence to show that there was more than one continent when Noah's flood happened.

Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
You're going to need to prove that statement as well. Please show how many human beings it takes to produce the diversity we see in humanity today.
Please provide your evidence showing that you know the timeline of the Ark story.


Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
I don't know. I've never been in the belly of a whale. Have you?

Ingledsva continues:


Sonofason responds:
again, I don't know that. You must keep in mind as well, that this event was managed by God, my magic hero.

Ingledsva continues:


Okay, you have provided some examples of God destroying seemingly innocent life. Perhaps I spoke too quickly. But perhaps I didn't. Please show me why a newborn child is innocent. Do you know the future of every newborn child?

Is it possible for evil children to grow into evil adults?

Is it possible for evil adults to have grown from evil children?

Why should I consider people that are mentally handicapped to be innocent?

Do the mentally handicapped do no wrong?

If an entire culture is evil, it would be my guess that even the newborns are evil as well.

I feel you are gonna get offended, but man, this post is truly nonsensical. What kind of analysis is this?

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course, NACHASH could not possibly taken metaphorically, could it?

Don't try to be snide; it's very unbecoming.


Besides you know full well that the translation is snake/serpent, could refer to a snake, serpent, Satan, or as I have put forward - a Sorcerer of the Old Religion, - hence metaphor.




*

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]Clear said in post # 380/381 regarding John 1:18

However, the Greek text makes further contextual distinctions that are not apparent in english versions.

For example, consider verse 18 of John, first chapter. The GN-4 (the Standard text for translators) reads :

“Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεοςο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.” (John 1:18) Which means, in english :

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Godwho is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (declared him, explained him, etc.)(John 1:18)

Since God the Father was not, historically referred to as a "begotten God", verse 18 cannot refer to him as a "begotten God", but, instead must refer to a different individual who was "the only begotten God". In this case, Jesus fits into this position in early Christian textual worldviews, especially given the many descriptions that refer to him as "the only begotten" "of the Father".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I might also point out that the Greek reading of “the only begotten God” in John 1:18, is classified in the GN-4 as “B” text. This means this is almost certainly the original Greek textual reading according to the panel of critical textualists. It is not contested by any scholar on these panels (so far).[/FONT]

Ingledsva said in post # 384

“Also - John 1:18 only has God once - it says monogenes uihos, only begotten/singular born Son.

Firedragon said in post # 389

“May I know whats the Septuagint you use pls? John 1:18 doesnt say Monogenes Uihos. “

Firedragon :

I am surprised you understood this point since it is usually textual Historians and Translators who understand this historical correction and use it correctly.

Historians do not generally believe that the version Ingledsva quoted from is the correct reading, but instead, use “μονογενης θεος” as the more correct reading.

It is thought that individuals changed the text to read as ingledsva’s text does to “protect God” from polytheism. For example, the reading “only begotten God” comes from first order textual witnesses and one of the correctors in Sinaiticus (4th century uncial) tried to correct the reading. However it is still obvious that the original reading in this important Uncial was “only begotten God”.

This more original reading is found in many first order textual witnesses, including Uncials B and C. It is found in the immensely important P66; and in Syrian harklensis. It exists in Origens texts “in partim” (meaning this exact quote exists in multiple references by the same person, thus it is not an accidental usage), In fact it exists in Irenaeus AND Clement in partim as well. In fact Clement uses the same quote in “ex theodoto”. Thus these writers use it as an official version. Even Uncial L uses this reading (The only substantial gospels manuscripts better than L are P75, B, and sinaiticus)

The point is, there is very good reason why textual historians use this early and more authentic Greek text rather than the version quoted by Ingledsva, (but which most non translators and typical Christians will see a translation of in their english translations).

I am very, very impressed you knew this. However, I might remind you that the Jewish septuagint includes the old testament only. Frubals to you for the correct historical context on this specific verse of scripture.

Clear
φιφυσιδρω

 

[Ingledsva]

I actually agree with most of this - as written - and as I've already said.


Monogenes, just means singular born, special one, etc.


As I said earlier - a god - can be godly, or a god as they called Judges of Israel.


As the awaited Jewish Messiah - Jesus would be a Special Singular human sent from God for a special mission - as a JUDGE - he was to bring about the end and Final Judgment.


However - it nowhere says Jesus is God/trinity.


Also - John 1:18 only has God once - it says monogenes uihos, only begotten/singular born Son.

May I know whats the Septuagint you use pls? John 1:18 doesnt say Monogenes Uihos.

The Septuagint is Greek Tanakh, not NT.

The Latin Vulgate has "only begotten Son."

So does the Textus Receptus.

"Buchsel also calls "an only-begotten, one who is God:" "an exegetical invention [which] can hardly be credited of [John], who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression." (TDNT 4 p. 740)."


The majority use Only Begotten Son, because it make the most sense in the translation, however, even if we use god (small g) he is not "The GOD," - as has been pointed out. One - it says BESIDE, and two - it says "only begotten" so not THE GOD.


Judges are called gods (small g) - elohiym, etc.



*

 

[firedragon]

The Septuagint is Greek Tanakh, not NT.

The Latin Vulgate has "only begotten Son."

So does the Textus Receptus.

"Buchsel also calls "an only-begotten, one who is God:" "an exegetical invention [which] can hardly be credited of [John], who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression." (TDNT 4 p. 740)."


The majority use Only Begotten Son, because it make the most sense in the translation, however, even if we use god (small g) he is not "The GOD," - as has been pointed out. One - it says BESIDE, and two - it says "only begotten" so not THE GOD.


Judges are called gods (small g) - elohiym, etc.



*

I asked you what Septuagint you use because I wanted to make an example of other sons, Moses and Israel and quote you the Greek Text.

The verse 1:18 is μονογενηϲ θϲ. The later manuscripts have μονογενης θεος where you can see the difference. There is an epsilon and an Omicron which you wont find in the older ones. But huios (υἱό&#962 is not there.

And Septuagint is not a Tanakh. Most have more books than the Tanakh. It is more correct to refer it as the Old Testament.

Monogenes is used to mean "Only child".

So the two words would read "only child God" in direct translation. That does not mean God is the child. huios iwanou means son of John, similarly Monogenes Iwanou means only child of John. So Monogenes Theos means only son of God. Bar Enoch is Son of Enoch. BarAbbas is Son of Abbas. Same in Hebrew as Bene Elohim, Son of God or Arabic, Bani Qasim, Son of Qasim.

When reading Greek you have to think from the languages point of view.

In the Septuagint you will see Moses called God

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς "Μωυσῆν" λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε "θεὸν" Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης

When Israel is called "First Born" by God. Prototokos. Also is Ephraim. For a Greek, a Prototokos is the one who will carry his legacy, his name and progeny as a father leaves his son to run his family and estate.

Make what you may.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Judges are called gods (small g) - elohiym, etc.
*

There is no small g or capitol G in Greek,

Arabic, Hebrew or I believe almost all of the old languages spanning the middle east to Asia. You can never quote a small g. And El means Power and Elohiym means Powers. In psalms they are called Elohiym and Bene HaElyon, children of the most high. But the New Testament uses οτι ειπα θεοι, I said Gods. Theoi, which means Small Gods.

In our languages Small and big has a significant meaning. Podi Mahattaya is a small lord, which doesnt mean he is small in stature, small lord who is the representative of the big lord. Small boss the representative of the big boss. Ho theos is the big God. Theos is to give a divine nature to something.

Peace

 

[Clear]

Regarding Ingledsvas initial question : “So you believe snakes and donkeys spoke?”

Katzpur replied : “Of course, NACHASH [the snake] could not possibly taken metaphorically, could it?”

Hi Katzpur :

I think these conversations are interesting in that they reveal the mixture of religious belief. Having a forum Jew, asking the rhetorical (sarcastical?) question about a snake speaking is interesting, since, the Jews themselves teach that the snake in the garden of eden DID speak.

The Talmud and Jewish mishas give us descriptions of official Jewish teachings regarding such historical beliefs. For example, in Jewish mishnarim and Midrashim the early rabbis tell us explicitly that, in Jewish interpretation, the events related in the fall of Adam and eve, including the birth of Cain and Abel happened on the same day (in fact Cain is born before the fall in the early Jewish beliefs). If this Jewish belief means that eve gives birth in one day, such beliefs obviously requires a belief that human physiology was created differently than it now exists.

These differences extend to the nature of animals as well. Just as the Jews teach that Adam was created with both sets of sex organs (both male and female); Jews teach that the serpent was also quite different in it’s nature.

In Jewish belief, as the midrash tells us, the serpent was a “cunning beast” that “stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication”. (my quotes are from my printed talmud) Other Jewish doctrinal interpretations often relate back to this basic Jewish belief.

For example, Gen. Rabba 19 tells us that “The higher the position the greater is the fall, and this applies to the serpent, who not only was the chief of all animals, but walked upright like man, and when it fell it sank into the reptile species.”

Interestingly, though early Jewish commentators agree that the “serpent” in this text is “literally a serpent”, and describe this “serpent” in great detail, the rabbis then, ironically, differ on their opinion as to whether the serpent “represented” “the evil inclination”, “Satan”, or “the Angel of Death” (again my quotes are from my printed Talmud).

This situation of curious mixture where a literal serpent, can still “represent” metaphorical forces such as “the evil inclination”, or “satan” or the “angel of death” is an unusual mixture of literalness and metaphor that most of us are not used to trying to rationalize and imagine. The Jewish version of the fall is very interesting and your question was quite appropriate historically.




Firedragon :

Your explanation regarding why you asked about the septuagint makes sense. I apologize that I misunderstood you and I thought your points were quite thought provoking. Just a small point however, there is no diminutive in "οτι ειπα θεοι" in greek. I also agree that Ingledsva is not using a translators level text for her quotes.

I enjoyed your comments and their potential historical implications, especially since your description of "little" and "big" Lords correlates to the early Judeo-Christian concept of a κλερονομοσ (rightful or lawful heir) and it's relationship to being a "little" Lord of a father who will, upon receiving the inheritance, become the "big" Lord. Very thought provoking.

Clear
φισεειακω

 

[Ingledsva]

(1) - I asked you what Septuagint you use because I wanted to make an example of other sons, Moses and Israel and quote you the Greek Text.

(2) - The verse 1:18 is μονογενηϲ θϲ. The later manuscripts have μονογενης θεος where you can see the difference. There is an epsilon and an Omicron which you wont find in the older ones. But huios (υἱό&#962 is not there.

(3) -And Septuagint is not a Tanakh. Most have more books than the Tanakh. It is more correct to refer it as the Old Testament.

(2.B) -Monogenes is used to mean "Only child".

So the two words would read "only child God" in direct translation. That does not mean God is the child. huios iwanou means son of John, similarly Monogenes Iwanou means only child of John. (4) - So Monogenes Theos means only son of God. Bar Enoch is Son of Enoch. BarAbbas is Son of Abbas. Same in Hebrew as Bene Elohim, Son of God or Arabic, Bani Qasim, Son of Qasim.

When reading Greek you have to think from the languages point of view.

In the Septuagint you will see Moses called God

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς "Μωυσῆν" λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε "θεὸν" Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης

When Israel is called "First Born" by God. Prototokos. Also is Ephraim. For a Greek, a Prototokos is the one who will carry his legacy, his name and progeny as a father leaves his son to run his family and estate.

Make what you may.

Peace.

(1.) Dude - John is NOT in the Septuagint.

(2.) I am well aware of the argument. Most use "son" because they do not wish to put forward the inaccurate idea that Jesus is God, because other verses use words like "BESIDE" in 1, and only born FROM the father in 14. It is understood Jesus is not THE God, but sent from him, - a Son.

As to people called gods, elohiym, etc., yes I know. I have written about such many times to show Jesus is NOT "THE" God.

(3.) It is not correct to refer to someone's current Religious Text as "OLD Testament." We have been asked by Jewish members here, to call it Tanakh.

(4) I agree - however with a "begotten," as we have many Sons of God in the Bible.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Judges are called gods (small g) - elohiym, etc.

There is no small g or capitol G in Greek,

Arabic, Hebrew or I believe almost all of the old languages spanning the middle east to Asia. You can never quote a small g. And El means Power and Elohiym means Powers. In psalms they are called Elohiym and Bene HaElyon, children of the most high. But the New Testament uses οτι ειπα θεοι, I said Gods. Theoi, which means Small Gods.

In our languages Small and big has a significant meaning. Podi Mahattaya is a small lord, which doesnt mean he is small in stature, small lord who is the representative of the big lord. Small boss the representative of the big boss. Ho theos is the big God. Theos is to give a divine nature to something.

Peace

Again - I know this - as shown by past posts.

NOTE that I used a lowed case g for gods, and a lower case e for Elohiym - showing that neither, in this case, are THE God.

The (small g) in quotes was for English speaking readers to understand that there are human gods, and THE God, and they are different.


*

 

[firedragon]

Again - I know this - as shown by past posts.

NOTE that I used a lowed case g for gods, and a lower case e for Elohiym - showing that neither, in this case, are THE God.

The (small g) in quotes was for English speaking readers to understand that there are human gods, and THE God, and they are different.


*

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Truce.

 

[firedragon]

(1.) Dude - John is NOT in the Septuagint.

(2.) I am well aware of the argument. Most use "son" because they do not wish to put forward the inaccurate idea that Jesus is God, because other verses use words like "BESIDE" in 1, and only born FROM the father in 14. It is understood Jesus is not THE God, but sent from him, - a Son.

As to people called gods, elohiym, etc., yes I know. I have written about such many times to show Jesus is NOT "THE" God.

(3.) It is not correct to refer to someone's current Religious Text as "OLD Testament." We have been asked by Jewish members here, to call it Tanakh.

(4) I agree - however with a "begotten," as we have many Sons of God in the Bible.


*

Lol. Of course John is not in the Septuagints. Jews may want you to call it Tanakh but what if the OT has more books than the Tanakh? I dont mean to offend Jews because I know for them the scripture is much more divine and they revere it. All due respect given. Some Old Testaments have 75 books. Some 73 and others 66.

Edit: Of course, as most agree this is after what went on in Turkey with Constantine.
Peace.