Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

@cataway and @Brian2

@cataway said : “Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”

Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.” (post #637)



I have to admit that this post seems a bit dishonest to me since it seems to represent the “translation” of the New World Translation that Jason is describing. This is not what Jason BeDuhn is doing and this quote does not accurately represent BeDuhns research, his purpose, nor his conclusion.



REGARDING THE ATTEMPT TO USE JASON DAVID BEDUHN’S BOOK TO SHOW THE NEW WORD BIBLE IS AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION


A) The author actually chastises Jehovahs witness for textual bias and it’s effect of changing the text by inappropriately inserting “Jehovah” where it never existed in the text
For example, in this book, Beduhn chastises the Jehovahs Witnesses for both translational AND theological errors and bias against the Jehovahs Witness bible.

Beduhn spends an entire appendix pointing out the errors of the New World Translation in it’s inappropriate insertion of “Jehovah” where it is unwarranted in many, many places.

If you still want to use this book and this scholar as a reference for “bias”, then we should discuss what sort of very specific “bias” he was looking for in his comparison, what sort of bias the New World Translation doesn’t have as much of and the opposite sort of bias the Jehovahs Witness Bible has the most of in Beduhns personal measurement.


B) BeDuhn maintains ALL bibles are biased, but he is looking at a SPECIFIC bias supporting Trinitarianism
As another example, if you do a minimal amount of research, you will see that the Author is NOT analyzing a “General Bias” since the author is very clear that ALL bibles have bias. Instead, he is comparing a small sample of scriptures from a small sample of bibles for the very specific bias that relate to the worship of Jesus as the God of the Old Testament.


C) The Jehovahs’ Witness bible has the LEAST “Trinitarian” bias of the few bibles in the sampling
Beduhn says he is analyzing for specific textual Bias for a specific Trinitarian bias (i.e. Jesus is the same as "God").

Since the creators of the Jehovahs Witness bible did not believe Jesus is the God of the Old Testament whereas the creators of the other Bibles did believe in Jesus as the God of the Old Testament, the analysis is not surprising.

IF a group believes in the trinity, their translation will have the MOST textual bias that demonstrating this belief.
IF a group doe NOT believe in the trinity, their translation will have the least textual bias demonstrating thats belief.

Frederick Franz, who, in the main, created the Jehovahs Witness New World bible, did NOT believe in the trinity. Therefore it is obvious that the bible he created would have the least textual bias supporting the trinity.

This is Jason BeDuhns conclusion regarding textual "correctness" and "bias" (or lack thereof).


D) The Jehovahs’ Witness bible has the MOST “non-Trinitarian” bias of the few bibles in the sampling
The Author explains that all bibles have bias.

Thus, one can use this principle to use the same data set to demonstrate that the Jehovahs Witness bible is the most biased text toward Jesus NOT being the God of the Old Testament while the Trinitarians bible is least biased toward Jesus NOT being the God of the Old Testament. We are partly speaking of semantics.


So, the conclusion is that trinitarians create bibles with the greatest amount of trinitarian bias and the non-trinitarian Jehovahs Witnesses created a bible with the least trinitarian bias of the bibles BeDuhn examined in a few selected verses.


Clear
νενεφιτωω

 

[cataway]

Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”
Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

it must be true all because all you hate it so much . Matthew 24:9 ........
and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.

 

[TiggerII]

Hi @tigger2

Tigger2 said : “I think the NWT translators were trying to bring out the difference between the neuter 'one (hen) as used in John 17 and the masculine 'one' (heis).” (post #635)


I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Εις and εν are not both “one” in this context and I don’t understand why Frederick Franz would have been trying to use εις as “one” in this specific case. (Am I misunderstanding your point?)

Εις, in ancient literature was a common preposition that is associated with some sort of change.

For example, it was associated with verbs of motion (i.e. going into a house) or a destination even if metaphorically such as “So, my son, “it’s come to this” (‘εις παν τι’), has it?” It often conveys the idea of a direction or location of an encounter. In the case of John 17:23 it speaks of the progress which was to result in a change in their character (which, this case, was to bring them unity as @Brian2 suggested). In it’s usage of expressing destination is it usually a “progress” that is being expressed, or a transfer or change in value (such as it’s usage in contracts or payments being made). Even when it was used as an expression such as “in the name or place of” (e.g. εις τον χριστος) it expressed the change in authority granted by of one with greater authority.

In this specific phrase, I like the symbolism of perfection/maturation as a process of “movement” toward being unified (a progressive change in character and value) which is being expressed.

In any case Tigger2, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful

Clear

There is a big difference between hen and en in NT Greek. The same goes for heis and eis. I'm surprised by your reply.

 

[Clear]

Regarding John 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may be one in me that they may become completed/perfected into one as we are one”

Clear said : "The source greek is "ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι" which is "that they may be "mature", "perfected", "complete", "proper", etc.". The authentic phrase says nothing of "complete unity". (post #630)
Tigger2 said : “I think the NWT translators were trying to bring out the difference between the neuter 'one (hen) as used in John 17 and the masculine 'one' (heis).” (post #635)
Tigger2 said : "There is a big difference between hen and en in NT Greek. The same goes for heis and eis. I'm surprised by your reply. (Post #643)


Hi @tigger2, In this instance I am claiming τετελειωμενοι εις is a verb (τετελειωμενοι - perfected/completed/matured, etc) and a preposition (εις - “into/becoming/changing, etc) before the word/ordinal εν (one) and that the meaning of the three word phrase we are speaking of is not "completely one".

Can you give us more explanation what you claim is (i.e. it's relevance) and how it changes my point? Without more information I cannot understand your point, nor it's import.

Thanks so much

Clear
νενεσιειω

 

[TiggerII]

Regarding John 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may be one in me that they may become completed/perfected into one as we are one”

Clear said : "The source greek is "ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι" which is "that they may be "mature", "perfected", "complete", "proper", etc.". The authentic phrase says nothing of "complete unity". (post #630)
Tigger2 said : “I think the NWT translators were trying to bring out the difference between the neuter 'one (hen) as used in John 17 and the masculine 'one' (heis).” (post #635)
Tigger2 said : "There is a big difference between hen and en in NT Greek. The same goes for heis and eis. I'm surprised by your reply. (Post #643)


Hi @tigger2, In this instance I am claiming τετελειωμενοι εις is a verb (τετελειωμενοι - perfected/completed/matured, etc) and a preposition (εις - “into/becoming/changing, etc) before the word/ordinal εν (one).

Can you give us more explanation what you claim is and how it changes my point? Without more information I cannot understand your point, nor it's import.

Thanks so much

Clear
νενεσιειω

Sorry, Clear. I think I told you I'm getting old and sometimes off-track.

I was referring to this part of John 17:22 - "That they may be one (hen) as we are one (hen). Explaining that the 'oneness' was a condition of agreement with rather than being literally the same person or being.

Notice the breathing mark above ev. It makes the word hen in English characters and means "one" (neut.) in Greek.

As for τετελειωμενοι εις ἕν, I (and the NWT) agree with you. "...that they may be perfected into one (hen)".

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Oeste]

it must be true all because all you hate it so much .

I don’t recall anyone here stating they “hate” the NWT. Obviously many disagree with it and even find some parts objectionable, but criticism is not hatred.

But even if someone here did “hate” the NWT I do not see how that formulates a basis to conclude "it must be true". If that is the case, then any "hatred" JW's feel towards my favorite bible must in itself render my translation true.

Matthew 24:9.......and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.

You are misapplying the quote from Matthew 24:9:

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.​

We are discussing scripture. Yes things can get heated at times but I don't see that happening now. Besides, no one is delivering you up to be afflicted, no one is threatening to kill anyone, and certainly we have yet to hear the nations declare they hate the NWT or Jehovah Witnesses because they identify with the name Jesus Christ.

Unless there was a post I missed or was pulled by a moderator, I would consider any such levy directed at the posters here to be a false witness.

 

[Clear]

Sorry, Clear. I think I told you I'm getting old and sometimes off-track.

I was referring to this part of John 17:22 - "That they may be one (hen) as we are one (hen). Explaining that the 'oneness' was a condition of agreement with rather than being literally the same person or being.

Notice the breathing mark above ev. It makes the word hen in English characters and means "one" (neut.) in Greek.

As for τετελειωμενοι εις ἕν, I (and the NWT) agree with you. "...that they may be perfected into one (hen)".

Sorry for the confusion.

Hi @tigger2

Please, please, be at peace on this issue. It is inevitable that such misunderstandings will occur. I remain just as impressed with some of the specific points you have made as ever. For example, I think your point that "the 'oneness" of John 17;22 ' was a condition of agreement with rather than being literally the same person or being." is perfectly correct just as I agree with you that it is correct grammatically, in Koine, to render John 1:1c as "a God".


REMOVING RELIGIOUS BIAS FROM TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 - AN EXPERIMENT
One can simply ask google to translate to greek the sentence "and the word was a God" and see if it matches John 1:1c. Then ask Google to translate to greek the sentence "and the word was the God" and see if it matches. Google will translate these two sentences differently. The one that matches is, grammatically, correct. The advantage of this is that google translator is not biased, but instead, it is based on grammatical rules..

Good journey @tigger2

Clear
ειτζτζσετωω

 

[cataway]

I don’t recall anyone here stating they “hate” the NWT. Obviously many disagree with it and even find some parts objectionable, but criticism is not hatred.

But even if someone here did “hate” the NWT I do not see how that formulates a basis to conclude "it must be true". If that is the case, then any "hatred" JW's feel towards my favorite bible must in itself render my translation true.



You are misapplying the quote from Matthew 24:9:

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.​

We are discussing scripture. Yes things can get heated at times but I don't see that happening now. Besides, no one is delivering you up to be afflicted, no one is threatening to kill anyone, and certainly we have yet to hear the nations declare they hate the NWT or Jehovah Witnesses because they identify with the name Jesus Christ.

Unless there was a post I missed or was pulled by a moderator, I would consider any such levy directed at the posters here to be a false witness.

ahhh. sooo your saying you just love the JW's less . its far more likely you would be happier if the JW's went away. its alot like it was with Jesus

 

[Oeste]

ahhh. sooo your saying you just love the JW's less

No, you're saying that, not me.

its far more likely you would be happier if the JW's went away.

I have no idea where this wild idea of yours comes from; just that it comes from you.

Please respond to something actually posted.

its alot like it was with Jesus

I agree! They brought a false witness against him too.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, Clear. I think I told you I'm getting old and sometimes off-track.

I was referring to this part of John 17:22 - "That they may be one (hen) as we are one (hen). Explaining that the 'oneness' was a condition of agreement with rather than being literally the same person or being.

Notice the breathing mark above ev. It makes the word hen in English characters and means "one" (neut.) in Greek.

As for τετελειωμενοι εις ἕν, I (and the NWT) agree with you. "...that they may be perfected into one (hen)".

Sorry for the confusion.

Surely "...that they may be perfected into one (thing)" ------((-KIT having (thing) after the "one".)) means that they become something. This imo would be one Body of Christ, which is what the believers become with His Spirit in us joined to our spirit, and us in Him, so that we are all joined to Jesus. This would also work with the other analogy of us being built into the Temple of God, with each of us as living stones and Jesus as the chief cornerstone.
The same principle works with John 10:30 when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one". This is also a neuter 'one' and so means that the WT interpretation that it simply means in harmony or agreement is an inadequate interpretation.
It means that Jesus and the Father are one (thing). As I put in post 621.

>>>From this site: John 10:30 Commentaries: "I and the Father are one."
I get the below commentary:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Revelation 20:6; Revelation 22:3.<<<

 

[Brian2]

REMOVING RELIGIOUS BIAS FROM TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 - AN EXPERIMENT
One can simply ask google to translate to greek the sentence "and the word was a God" and see if it matches John 1:1c. Then ask Google to translate to greek the sentence "and the word was the God" and see if it matches. Google will translate these two sentences differently. The one that matches is, grammatically, correct. The advantage of this is that google translator is not biased, but instead, it is based on grammatical rules..

We know that the Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1 is not that "the word was the God" and that is not even what the Greek says.
I don't know all the things that trinitarians say about the verse but what I have picked up is that the "God" of John 1:1c is adjectival and so is saying that the Word is "like God". I would say that it means that the Word is like God in every way. This is no different to what we find in other places in the NT concerning Jesus, whereas the OT basically says that nobody is like Jehovah.
To me John 1:1-3 is describing the time of the beginning, when nothing had been created, including the angels and heaven etc. (The Word being the one who created all things, meaning He was not created) This was a time when all there was, was God, the only true God, the Father. There were no other gods with Him.
The Word was with Him however (and actually we know that the Word was "in" Him) and that means they were one (thing),,,,,,,,,,,,,,not just in agreement, but actually united as one thing.
This does not mean the one thing they were was the one true God, the Father, because the Word was with and in the Father, but the only point of difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the source of the Son and so is the true Son of God and has been that way from eternity and that is the basis of their relationship. It is one of being equal in nature and everything else except authority,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless of course the Son decided one day to claim that full equality next to His Father. He of course could do this any time and according to Phil 2, a passage about humility between equals, had a perfect opportunity by refusing to become a human. But of course He is just like His Father and is humble and loving etc and so did the right thing and did not demand His inheritance like the prodigal, but became human and let His Father exalt Him and give Him the name about all names so that we would all recognise and worship Him also.

That certainly turned into a longer blurb than I planned. I hope it is clear,,,,,,,,,,,no pun intended.

All that said, I would say that the use of "and the word was God" may be one of those places where translation bias is seen, even if "God" probably is a short hand way of making the same point I have been making.
I of course see the NWT use of "a god" as translation bias in the opposite direction.

 

[cataway]

I agree! They brought a false witness against him too.

i see you have again used contemptable disdain against the JW's even as it has been done in the past. we are not surprised .

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

1) The example of using Google to translate "and the Word was a God".

My example was to not intended to demonstrate that rendering John 1:1c was theologically correct, but simply to demonstrate that the Jehovahs Witnesses (and anyone else) are grammatically correct to render John 1:1c as “and the Word was a God”.

However, the writer of John 1:1c would have had a theological/contextual bias and that bias is not clearly indicated in the sentence itself. The grammar may reflect the bias of “a” God or the writer may have had a different bias and meant “the” God. The original context determines the original meaning rather than the grammar in this specific case.

It will not affect my theological model whether the original writer meant “a God” or “the God” since in my historical model, either can be correct and it doesn't change my historical model.
Jesus was "a" God and Jesus was also "the" God of the Old Testament in my model. It simply doesn’t matter in the historical henotheistic model. It may matter in some trinitiarian models and does matter in the Jehovahs Witness model.

My point is that the Jehovahs Witnesses are perfectly correct in their grammatical rendering.

I admit that my own bias is in favor of the earliest historical Christian models described in the earliest Judeo-Christian literature where the Father and the Son are different individuals (3=3 model). I do not see any logical or rational or intuitive or interpretive advantages to the later 3=1 model of the trinity.

LOGICAL AND RATIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL AND SEMANTICAL EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MODELS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FATHER, JESUS AND THE SPIRIT
For example, speaking of “the basis of their relationship” which you referred to. In your description, you describe the “oneness” of Jesus and God the Father as “one of being equal in nature and everything else except authority,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless of course the Son decided one day to claim that full equality next to His Father.” (Brian2 in post #651).

It is difficult to justify the logic of claiming Jesus does not have full authority or equality with his Father, yet Jesus can "claim" full authority and equality by simply “claiming it”.
IF he doesn’t have it, and “claims it”, then the full equality must still be given him by another source that has it.

I don’t see the logical advantage of this philosophy or how to make it historically coherent with the earliest literature.



2) I like your consideration of θεος or “God” in John 1:1c as an adjective.

While I think your suggestion has merit, in the phrase in John 1:1c, the grammarians will point out that John 1:1c uses the noun "God". Thus it makes an "adjective argument" more difficult and complex (but certainly not impossible).

θειος (or θεικος) is the adjective for “god-like” or "divine" in the New Testament text (Used in Acts/2 Peter) and so one can speculate that John made a mistake and used the wrong word, or John meant the noun as an adjective, but I’ve not seen this argued before. (though, interestingly, I have seen some biblical versions USE the adjective....) I do think this thought is an interesting thought and has some utility since it can widen considerations of meaning.


In any case Brian2, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful


Clear
ειτζτωτωτωω

 

[Oeste]

i see you have again used contemptable disdain against the JW's even as it has been done in the past. we are not surprised .

@cataway, I have no idea what on earth you are talking about except that you may now be referring to yourself in the plural.

In any event, repeating a false witness does not make it any more true. It was false before and it is false now.

I would love for you to respond to something actually posted in a logical and rational manner. Feel free to do so but leave any personal attacks out of your response.

Thank you.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

Brian2 said : "To me John 1:1-3 is describing the time of the beginning, when nothing had been created, including the angels and heaven etc. (The Word being the one who created all things, meaning He was not created) This was a time when all there was, was God, the only true God, the Father." (post #651)


I don't want to interrupt your debate (as I have done...), but I simply wanted to make a comment about the word “one” that you are using and a quick comment about your concept of conditions at the creation of this world upon which we live.


1) THE CONCEPT OF JEWISH ECHAD VS YACHAD AS IT RELATES TO "ONENESS"

I very much like the fact that you have some historical context and knowledge concerning the Judeo-Christian use of the word that is describing how God the Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit were “one” in early Judeo-Christian tradition. Though we can’t tell from Greek whether Jesus was using אחד or יחד (“one”) still, the concept of use in describing the 12 disciples (Jn 17:11) can apply regardless.

Jesus, in speaking to his Father in prayer, asked for a blessing upon his disciples “… that they may be one, as we are…”. (Jn 17:11)

If Jesus was praying in a form of Hebrew (rather than greek), then he is probably not using the numerical term “one”, but probably the conceptual term “yachad” (i.e. one in purpose and thought and heart…). This was a common religious term applied to those who are committed to the same covenant or who are gathered upon a single principle, (such as those who committed to the same religious covenant.)

In fact, when the association of Messianic Jews in Qumran formed, they designated themselves a ‘yachad’.

To avoid mis-connotations of using various possible english “semi-equivalents”, the “Wise, Abegg and Cook translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls decided not to use the word “community”, but rather they used “yachad”, which was one of the society’s most common self-designations. It is very clear that this “oneness” of a yachad is not a numerical designation, but a conceptual unity of multiple individuals.

For example, יחד (yachad) is used to describe the type of “one ness” and “unity” of the The Father and his son and the Holy Spirit and its often and easily confused with the english numerical term, “one”.

While a judeo-christian “yachad” describing the trinity may be three individuals who are united in a single cosmic purpose (as is the early Christian “Godhead” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), it may refer to any number who are similar united upon a single covenant and purpose. It is a symbolism that we find in everyday usage. For example, if I buy a cluster of grapes on a single stalk at an israeli market, it can be called a "yachad". The common symbolism is that a group of things are connected to a single principle or purpose

For examples, when CHARTER (1QSa, 1Q28a) describes the banquet–feast in the latter days associated with the arrival of the Messiah, it is “a banquet held by the society of the yachad”. This “one-ness” involves a number of individuals united in a single purpose

In describing the PROOF TEXTS of 4Q175 one shared concept which partly created this “oneness” of faith was the societys’ expectations for the coming of the prophet who was like Moses (the greatest prophet); the royal scion of David and a high priest... They were "yachad" and "united" on this point.

In 4Q177, describes the time "...when the men of the yachad flee...". They fled in unison and share in their exile from their land. They are even sharing a “oneness” in the experiences of exile.

1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 8 describes this unity of the partly as a shared and united acceptance of a covenant of justice; a covenant of “upholding the covenant of eternal (divine) statutes.” . It says that as this way “…is perfected among the men of the Yachad, each walking blamelessly with his fellow”, each person being “… guided by what has been revealed to them.”

As each of this group remain united in the goal of upholding the same covenant and are each maturing in the same direction and each guided toward the same purpose, they are "yachad", "ONE. And this was to occur in the same manner as the apostles were to be "one', Just as the messiah was "one" with the Father.

The concept of “oneness” of a “yachad” is not simply a temporary or societal term, but an eternal religious concept much like the concept of a Christian heaven where individuals are united in living eternal social principles and live together in joy and harmony for ever. Heaven is another type of “yachad”.

That "one-ness" of multiple individuals as a "yachad" was, historically, a principle of "one ness" in heaven as well as an earthly principle is made clear in early texts. For example, in the "Priestly blessing for the last days" in 1Q28b, 1QSb Col. 4 the text says : “…May you abide forever as an angel of the Presence in the Holy habitation to the glory of the God of hosts. May you serve in the temple of the kingdom of God, ordering destiny with the angels of the presence, a society of the yachad with the holy ones forever, for all the ages of eternity.”

This society of individuals in heaven who have become “one” in purpose; one in heart and sentiment and even one in mind and thought as it regards this shared covenant is the concept underlying both Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and it’s great example of the ‘yachad’ which forms the Christian God-head and “unity” involving God the Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit.

I do not know if such ancient principles have any application to your own model of "one-ness" in the society of God the Father, his son the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit, but I thought I would simply describe it for your consideration. In any case, Good luck and good journey Brian@, in forming your own models as to the relationship of God to Jesus, and to the rest of us.



2) IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF THIS EARTH - THE JEWISH-TALMUDIC BELIEF THAT THIS WORLD WAS SIMPLY ONE OF MANY THAT WAS CREATED

One last thought.

IF John believed in the Jewish Talmudic claim that this world was simply one of many that had been created, then he may have believed in the Jewish teaching that the specific beginning spoken of in John 1:1 was not the actual beginning of creation just as Genesis 1:1 was not the “beginning” of creation of all things. But instead, was a specific beginning such as the beginning of the creation of THIS SPECIFIC world, as opposed to the many, many worlds that he had created before this one. I don’t think John or Genesis gives us sufficient data to know if John held to this Jewish teaching or not.

We do know that Genesis 1:1 does not mean in “the” beginning, (i.e. it is an indefinite article that is implied in Genesis 1:1 and not a definite article). Thus we see multiple modern bibles changing the first sentence in the bible such that it no longer says "In THE beginning" (which is incorrect in the hebrew-masoretic and implied in the greek by lack of article in the same way john 1:1c lacks the article...)


Good luck @Brian2

Clear
ειτζδρσεσιω

 

[Muffled]

No.
I 'see' evidence of God with any of my senses. Not God's work but God.

I believe that is not possible but I am willing to let you try to describe how that can be.

 

[Muffled]

Let me ask you this...some say the flesh of God per Jesus was of that of a fallen nature. How do you feel about this?

I believe God does not have flesh but inhabits it. I believe the fallen nature is not of the flesh but of an evil spirit. However the desires of the flesh and the will of the spirit can be at odds with each other at times not because the flesh is evil but simply because it has its own agenda.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe that is not possible but I am willing to let you try to describe how that can be.

I'm a Deist, so I sense things differently to you.
All I have to do is look anywhere, touch anything, smell any aroma, hear any noise and I am sensing a small part of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe God does not have flesh but inhabits it. I believe the fallen nature is not of the flesh but of an evil spirit. However the desires of the flesh and the will of the spirit can be at odds with each other at times not because the flesh is evil but simply because it has its own agenda.

So flesh that ... Oh never mind..

 

[YoursTrue]

it must be true all because all you hate it so much . Matthew 24:9 ........
and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.

That is true. Meantime so many claim to be Christian yet disobey God's commandments.