budaatum:

And so, in response to the above, Q1 would properly be translated to 'god', and not 'God'.

Q2 is generally translated as 'God', though wiki suggests that it could have meant "divine". It seems to depend on whether one is a trinitarian or not as to which one decides to use. Since most Bibles take a trinitarian position, one should expect 'God' to be meant, and not 'god'. There is no original manuscript to determine which was used, but one can determine that God was meant, whether rightly or wrongly. The Jews would argue that whatever was meant, it was not and cannot be God, the Jealous Almighty.

Q3 Christianity generally differentiates between 'god' and 'God'. The latter being the Almighty Jealous God, and the former being any odd god like Ogun, Sango, Odin, Zeus etc.

My brother, please ask this guy to answer the questions I asked him and his colleagues. No matter what you say now, they will twist it. You have to first know what they are fighting to defend and protect.

Because they do not read with context, everything appears as nonsense to them. How can they truly understand the word if God, when they believe that the Holy Spirit of God is just a mere active force. Who can understand the scriptures with mere human logic?.

The original Greek letters translated word for word is the answer, but they've also tampered with it. So we need to go down to the foundation to really know who is who. Because if the root is good, then the branches will good as well, but if otherwise, the branches may look beautiful, but they are not good. Shalom.

Peacefullove:




Ignorance

Answer me first , is it wrong Yes or no

Going by your last analogy of why should a translator change the original text.

Will you now just admit , the rendering of Theo's as ' a god ' in Act 28 vs 6 is pure corruption ?

There's no justification for that. Stop trying to add what isn't there for the almighty God. Is Paul, Herod and Jesus Christ the same?.

Read this text below and stop this Antichrist stance.

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)
The Predicate Coming Before the Subject
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

https://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Primesky:


My brother, please ask this guy to answer the questions I asked him and his colleagues. No matter what you say now, they will twist it. You have to first know what they are fighting to defend and protect.

Because they do not read with context, everything appears as nonsense to them. How can they truly understand the word if God, when they believe that the Holy Spirit of God is just a mere active force. Who can understand the scriptures with mere human logic?.

The original Greek letters translated word for word is the answer, but they've also tampered with it. So we need to go down to the foundation to really know who is who. Because if the root is good, then the branches will good as well, but if otherwise, the branches may look beautiful, but they are not good. Shalom.

None of you involved in this discussion would allow whatever I have to say to really matter since I am an atheist. But since we have no original sources, and have no access to foundations all we have is our "human logic". And I am afraid everyone's logic does not see things the same way. It is this beautiful idea that the almost god, Albert Einstein, made us conscious of when he came up with his General Theory of Relativity. And Paul expressed the same sentiment when he wrote to the Corinthians.

One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided?

The reply to that question was given by Jesus himself:

Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

But let me translate that, using the baav: "anyone who gives me a cup of water will be rewarded". You might need to decipher that by reading up on the Samaritan who just gave the 'water' regardless of "my name".

I will go over what's been written. Meanwhile, thank you all for giving me water. You quench my thirst.

I can't say I understand your position here OneJ, if you could indulge me.

To begin with, most English Bibles have In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. With capital Word and God, so where did you get yours with small letters 'word' and 'god'?

OneJ:


Primesky, make I break am down for U to understand.
John 1:1 manuscript reads : "in beginning was the word & the word was toward or facing (with) the god , & god was the word".
Pls, note these points I will shortly highlight.
In your Bible , it reads " In the beginning.." Addition of 'the' beginning gives it a more precise meaning. Let's move forward.
The phrase "the word" gives a precise identity of some one (we know he is Jesus). The next sentence "..& the word was toward or facing (with) the god..".
From a careful & critical observation ,we see "the word" & some one else, "the god".
We have already known that "the word" is an identity of Jesus. Then,who is "the god"? The Almighty Father. Pls note ,we have two distinct personalities here ("the word & the god" ) side by side (not one entity but two entities). The final sentence reads "& god was the word". Here lies the bone of contention. Pls look at sentence well well. "and god was the word". We already know that "the word" is an identity of some one, Jesus. Also, "the god"
too is an identity of the Almighty Father. Let's be honest "and god..." lacks a definite article 'the' attached to it (that verse did not say " and the god was the word".. Therefore, in that final sentence, " god" is not the concrete identity of any entity. But , it points to a quality that is divine or godlike. Also, note that "was god" na past tense ooo!!!!
More so, John never said Jesus is God. Besides, Christ himself never said he is God. He always said he is the son whom his Father, God sent to save man (unless u wanna twist a Bible verse & put your own meaning). Addition of " 'a' god " gives precise meaning synonymous with scripture. Acts28:6. Ps 82:6. John 10:34. 1Cor 8:4-6. Shalom

Peacefullove:


Glad you have realized your earlier mistake of saying Theo's is corrupt if translated ' a god'

Likewise, at John 1:1 those who didn't capitalize Theo's are right because Jesus is not the God . he is a son of the God, the God is the God of Jesus himself @bold

Could you show where Theos is translated as 'god' in John 1:1 please? I have not found it anywhere.

budaatum:
I can't say I understand your position here OneJ, if you could indulge me.

To begin with, most English Bibles have In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. With capital Word and God, so where did you get yours with small letters 'word' and 'god'?

Sourced from : "John 1:1 wikipedia " (pls Google it). Look out for the subheading captioned "Source texts & translations".
U will find out that that the popular version of John 1:1 in many English Bibles actually twisted & distorted the Greek manuscript. The Greek manuscript word for word in English reads :
"in beginning was the word ,& the word was with ( toward ,facing ) the god ,& god was the word".
(Everything there is lowercase.).

The Coptic Sahidic version ( "in beginning existed the word, & the word existed with the god ,& a god was the word" is more correct than the popular version in English.

English Bibles says : "In the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God & the Word was God".
Pls check am well well, are the popular English Bible versions actually faithful to the manuscript ?
The wikipedia affirmed that the. " the collwell rule is often misapplied ". to defend Trinity. U can check all the endnotes attached there in.
Shalom

budaatum:

Could you show where Theos is translated as 'god' in John 1:1 please? I have not found it anywhere.

The Greek manuscript is in lowercase.
The Greek manuscript transliteration of John 1:1 word for word, Greek to English can be Sourced from "John 1:1 wikipedia".
The Apostle John in John 1:1 never said " the word is the god" (Almighty Father). That's the unpopular truth that Trinitarian folks can not admit.

Can you show us one Bible verse in which that phrase was used, "God the son"?
Explain with a contemporary example a case where a father and a son became Siamese twins.

Fredmatic:
You need the help of the holy ghost to understand the deep things of God, is not sth u go to theological school or mere reading it.

Jesus is God the son not God the father and both are equal in status, but Jesus don't count on it( just like twins childrend that you can hardly differentiate).

Also while on earth he made it clear to us as a father and son relationship, which are clear in all the example he gave and demonstrated

OneJ:

The Greek manuscript is in lowercase.
The Greek manuscript transliteration of John 1:1 word for word, Greek to English can be Sourced from "John 1:1 wikipedia".
The Apostle John in John 1:1 never said " the word is the god" (Almighty Father). That's the unpopular truth that Trinitarian folks can not admit.

I already read wiki on the topic. That's why I asked how theos in Genesis 1:1 is translated. Is it with a small g or a capital one? We at least know which god is meant there. It is not however its transliterated form (theos, theon) that is of question here.

The following is John 1:1-2 from a Greek bible. I have enboldened the word that has been transliterated to theos and translated to either god or God.

11Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

The letter θ looks like a capital letter to me. However, wherever that letter occurs, it is of the same size (ἄνθρωπος, ἀληθινόν, ἔμπροσθέν), so perhaps its not capital after all. But then, look at the beginning of verse 2 where it says οὗτος. The initial letter there does not look like its capitalised. So, might the entire text have been written in small letters?

The same source translates it as follows:

1 In the beginning the word, and the word to the god, and to thee the word. 2 O God in the beginning before the god.

I do wonder why a capital God is used in the first verse, and a small one in the second when the Greek has θεόν in both cases.

And here is Genesis 1:1-5 from the Septuagint. Where the same form is used, albeit with a slight variation.

1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος
3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς
4 καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ὅτι καλόν καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους
5 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί ἡμέρα μία

Note that the same θεὸς is used for both 'Lord' and 'God'. Also note the variation, θεοῦ, in the second verse.

It is translated as:

1 In archῇ he created the God the uranium and the earth
2 or not land not invisible and unmade and dark Top of the abyss and spirit God epefereto UP OF WATER
3 And said, O Lord Let there be light and Done Light
4 and saw O God the light that good and diechorisen The god per means of light and every means of dark
5 and ekalesen The god the light day and the darkness ekalesen overnight and was performed Esperion and was made the morning day one

Note the small letter used in verses 4 and 5!

Who are US? 2 Corinthians 4:4 says that Jesus is the image OF God

Baptizing in the name of the father, son n holy does not mean/say that they are equal Gods, does it?

ShadowFighter:
Several parts in the bible talks about the Trinity. You can't just dismiss it b'cause you don't like it or it doesn't suit you.

The baptisimal formula in Matt. 28:19, ''Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is a clear indication of the Trinity.

Even the Creation of man uses plural tearms. Gen 1:26, '' And God said, Let US make man in OUR own image....

How does baptizing one in the name of the son, father and holy spirit mean that they are equal God?
Explain, please.

Fredmatic:

What are u saying ? Didn't u ready that part of the bible where Jesus said baptise them in the be of the fsther , son and holy spirit? Forget those your history just follow the simple part of truth.
Also read john1, 1-5 your will kn while Jesus is God

budaatum:

Could you show where Theos is translated as 'god' in John 1:1 please? I have not found it anywhere.

Just a Google search would have saved this kind of questions , worse still if you have educate yourself from that Wikipedia page discussing this same John 1 vs 1


From the page, here are some versions where Theo's is translated as a god .



"and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists



"and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament ( (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

Check for more and enlighten yourself on that pg

nd we already acknowledged it can translated like that

Primesky:


There's no justification for that. Stop trying to add what isn't there for the almighty God. Is Paul, Herod and Jesus Christ the same?.

Read this text below and stop this Antichrist stance.

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)
The Predicate Coming Before the Subject
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

https://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

I can see you are having sleepless nights over this as your cherished myths are falling down right in your face


Tell me why Paul was called Theo's ( GOD ) and you decide to change it to ' a god ' ? Until you justify this, you lack any knowledge of this subject you are diving to

Peacefullove:


I can see you are having sleepless nights over this as your cherished myths are falling down right in your face


Tell me why Paul was called Theo's ( GOD ) and you decide to change it to ' a god ' ? Until you justify this, you lack any knowledge of this subject you are diving to

Hahaha... As always, twisting and dodging. Go back and read my reply post. I am here, I'm going no where. I will see how far you guys will keep dodging my questions. I have seen you guys, I know your tricks. Read the post I sent you, and don't pretend again. Thanks.

Primesky dey quote John 8:56-59 " I am " & twist Exodus 3:14.. Oga Primesky, the present tense "I am". does not exist in Hebrew language or their manuscript of Exodus 3;14..

It's very fraudulent & dishonest to pass off the Greek "I am" (ego himi ) as if it's Hebrew language..


The Hebrew "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" (in Exodus 3:14 ) meaning "I will be what /who I will be" has no connection whatsoever with "I am that I am" (or the Greek ego himi. ) .
"I AM" na fake slogan to defend a lie.


Besides, John chapter 8:12-58, Jesus only said he had been in existence before Abraham was born & he (Jesus) was sent by his Father ,God Almighty , to bear witness on earth.


Dear Nairalanders. , the Trinity fallacy is built on the counterfeit insertion of "I AM" into Exodus 3:14, which does not exist in Hebrew language or manuscript.
(Sourced from "Exodus 3:14 chabad.org".

OneJ:
Primesky dey quote John 8:56-59 " I am " & twist Exodus 3:14.. Oga Primesky, the present tense "I am". does not exist in Hebrew language or their manuscript of Exodus 3;14..

It's very fraudulent & dishonest to pass off the Greek "I am" (ego himi ) as if it's Hebrew language..


The Hebrew "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" (in Exodus 3:14 ) meaning "I will be what /who I will be" has no connection whatsoever with "I am that I am" (or the Greek ego himi. ) .
"I AM" na fake slogan to defend a lie.


Besides, John chapter 8:12-58, Jesus only said he had been in existence before Abraham was born & he (Jesus) was sent by his Father ,God Almighty , to bear witness on earth.


Dear Nairalanders. , the Trinity fallacy is built on the counterfeit insertion of "I AM" into Exodus 3:14, which does not exist in Hebrew language or manuscript.
(Sourced from "Exodus 3:14 chabad.org".

Hahaha... Wonders shall never end!. The fallacy is not small o.

You're one of the most intelligent of your colleagues, but this your reply is totally laughable. Let us even assume that it is as you said it.

I am that I am means what?. I am what I am, in other words, I am what or who I am this moment. He was God at that moment?. Man?, a weakling, a powerless God?. Hahaha...

Then your point, I will be what I will be. After God became the almighty like you people also call Him, will He all of a sudden become powerless, poor, less of a God?. I won't waste time replying this one abeg.

You know what?, you never agree with my points and I don't agree with your points. Between you, your religion and Christianity, one is absolutely wrong.

I have presented before you classical falsehood, false teachings, prophecies and doctrinal confusion to warrant your lies and deceit. I carefully watched as you and your colleagues, twisted and lied about the whole thing. Alright, let get down to business. Can you answer the question below.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV 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.

Isaiah 9:6 NWT For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership* will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

From the above passage both your version of the bible and the King James version, agreed that this son that shall be born, which is abviously talking about Jesus, will be called Mighty God, Eternal Father among other names. The question to you now is, since we have only one true God, can we have two mighty God, and two mighty Father at the same time and in the same place?. I don't understand, because your Bible also agreed to this. So here there's no translation wahala.

OneJ please do justice to this thank you.

I read wiki twice Peaceful. I don't think it's quite conclusive on the subject. And I doubt wiki will be accepted as word of god by religious people. So I went to the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek, and not as transliterated! Did a detailed post on it but it got caught by spambot for some reason and I got banned.

I compared the word used for God in John 1 (not the one I used, but this is even better as it explains more), with that used in Genesis 1 (we at least know which God was meant there), and found no difference in the two. Turns out the same Greek word can be translated to either 'god' or 'God'. But I'd need a second opinion on that as I might be wrong.

I've asked the mods if they can retrieve the post as I doubt I can repeat the amount of work it took.

Peacefullove:


Just a Google search would have saved this kind of questions , worse still if you have educate yourself from that Wikipedia page discussing this same John 1 vs 1


From the page, here are some versions where Theo's is translated as a god .



"and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists



"and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament ( (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

Check for more and enlighten yourself on that pg

nd we already acknowledged it can translated like that

Primesky:


Hahaha... Wonders shall never end!. The fallacy is not small o.

You're one of the most intelligent of your colleagues, but this your reply is totally laughable. Let us even assume that it is as you said it.

I am that I am means what?. I am what I am, in other words, I am what or who I am this moment. He was God at that moment?. Man?, a weakling, a powerless God?. Hahaha...

Then your point, I will be what I will be. After God became the almighty like you people also call Him, will He all of a sudden become powerless, poor, less of a God?. I won't waste time replying this one abeg.

You know what?, you never agree with my points and I don't agree with your points. Between you, your religion and Christianity, one is absolutely wrong.

I have presented before you classical falsehood, false teachings, prophecies and doctrinal confusion to warrant your lies and deceit. I carefully watched as you and your colleagues, twisted and lied about the whole thing. Alright, let get down to business. Can you answer the question below.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV 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.

Isaiah 9:6 NWT For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership* will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

From the above passage both your version of the bible and the King James version, agreed that this son that shall be born, which is abviously talking about Jesus, will be called Mighty God, Eternal Father among other names. The question to you now is, since we have only one true God, can we have two mighty God, and two mighty Father at the same time and in the same place?. I don't understand, because your Bible also agreed to this. So here there's no translation wahala.

OneJ please do justice to this thank you.

Hebrew language has no present tense. In Exodus 3:14,"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh does not mean. "I AM THAT I AM" .
Pls don't get it twisted. "I am" in Exodus 3:14 na fraud. Period !
Pls use your church mind tell nairalanders how "mighty " & "Almighty" (Exodus 6:3,Psalm 83:18. John 17:3 KJV) take mean the same thing. In Isaiah 9:6," a son has been given," Who gave the son? Anytime u hear the term "Father & son", is that ever a relationship of two person with equal status? I no know wetin happen to your brain.....
.

Post reinstated.
https://www.nairaland.com/4429818/take-doctrine-trinity-those-saying/7#69263799

OneJ:

Hebrew language has no present tense. In Exodus 3:14,"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh does not mean. "I AM THAT I AM" .
Pls don't get it twisted. "I am" in Exodus 3:14 na fraud. Period !
Pls use your church mind tell nairalanders how "mighty " & "Almighty" (Exodus 6:3,Psalm 83:18. John 17:3 KJV) take mean the same thing. In Isaiah 9:6," a son has been given," Who gave the son? Anytime u hear the term "Father & son", is that ever a relationship of two person with equal status? I no know wetin happen to your brain.....
.

Ahahahha! There you go again with twisting and selected interpretation.

I have answered you exodus 3:14 confusion. If you didn't get it, the go back up and read it.

As for the the difference between 'mighty and almighty', I know that you will focus on that. Please include the other one, ok?. The 'Everlasting Father' which you people said is 'eternal Father' whichever, how many eternal or everlasting Father can we have at the same time?. Why did you leave that out?. There's no blaming translation here o. How can a 'created god' as you say, be called the everlasting/eternal Father as well?.

OneJ:

The Greek manuscript is in lowercase.
The Greek manuscript transliteration of John 1:1 word for word, Greek to English can be Sourced from "John 1:1 wikipedia".
The Apostle John in John 1:1 never said " the word is the god" (Almighty Father). That's the unpopular truth that Trinitarian folks can not admit.

If one goes to the ancient texts, and if one were to honestly be open, one would question just about every translation as quite a lot of political license must have gone into making it at all readable. Some of the language it's written in didn't even exist anymore so how they determined what it meant is, well.....

I take the Judaic and Islamic position on the trinitarian issue myself. A jealous god would not be coequalling with anything, and it's rather ridiculous to assume gods, that don't exist in the first place, have children!

The twisting of the texts used to justify the deification of Jesus is very lame. You just have to wonder why his brothers James, Joses, Jude and Simon, and his unnamed sister are not gods too!

Which leaves one conclusion. Jesus was at best, a very wise man who taught people how to live better lives. He was so profound in his days that people bowed down and worshipped him just as some worship the Adeboyes, Oyedepos, Kumuyis and Copelands of today. Making them gods though contravenes the commandment not to worship any other gods but me!

budaatum:

If one goes to the ancient texts, and if one were to honestly be open, one would question just about every translation as quite a lot of political license must have gone into making it at all readable. Some of the language it's written in didn't even exist anymore so how they determined what it meant is, well.....

I take the Judaic and Islamic position on the trinitarian issue myself. A jealous god would not be coequalling with anything, and it's rather ridiculous to assume gods, that don't exist in the first place, have children!

The twisting of the texts used to justify the deification of Jesus is very lame. You just have to wonder why his brothers James, Joses, Jude and Simon, and his unnamed sister are not gods too!

Which leaves one conclusion. Jesus was at best, a very wise man who taught people how to live better lives. He was so profound in his days that people bowed down and worshipped him just as some worship the Adeboyes, Oyedepos, Kumuyis and Copelands of today. Making them gods though contravenes the commandment not to worship any other gods but me!

That's a very candid conclusion based on rigorous investigation & research to unearth the facts.
All in all, u can't find the Trinity in the scriptures unless U twist ,distort& make dubious additions ("I am " the father the son the holy ghost are one" but authentic reading in Exodus 3:14 is : "I will be what I will be" ;
1Tim3:16, he was manifest in the flesh"; 1John5:7," there are three that testify" & many others which were "sweetened " to make the Trinity popular. Shalom.

OneJ:

That's a very candid conclusion based on rigorous investigation & research to unearth the facts.
All in all, u can't find the Trinity in the scriptures unless U twist ,distort& make dubious additions ("I am" the father the son the holy ghost are one" but authentic reading in Exodus 3:14 is : "I will be what I will be" ;
1Tim3:16, he was manifest in the flesh"; 1John5:7," there are three that testify" & many others which were "sweetened " to make the Trinity popular. Shalom.

That's my opinion too. The question then is, 'why?'

Primesky:


Ahahahha! There you go again with twisting and selected interpretation.

I have answered you exodus 3:14 confusion. If you didn't get it, the go back up and read it.

As for the the difference between 'mighty and almighty', I know that you will focus on that. Please include the other one, ok?. The 'Everlasting Father' which you people said is 'eternal Father' whichever, how many eternal or everlasting Father can we have at the same time?. Why did you leave that out?. There's no blaming translation here o. How can a 'created god' as you say, be called the everlasting/eternal Father as well?.

Oga Primesky, pls don't get it twisted. "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" is not "I am that I am".Both words do not mean the same thing at all. If U like make U twist am till kingdom come.

Does the phrase "Area Father" or Godfather" refer to God Almighty? Pls give your answer.



Pls read this post well well.
Baba God Almighty used your human father to cause your birth as a full blooded omo naija (through Adam the father of mankind. But, Adam lost the prospect of eternal life for himself & all his offspring).

But Baba God Almighty redeemed us thru Jesus Christ & gave him the title of Prince of peace, Eternal Father because your future prospect of eternal life squarely depends on your believe & exercising faith in Jesus as the God sent Messiah for your salvation.
Furthermore,by virtue of Jesus being addressed as the second Adam (also called the last Adam) ,he received the power to resurrect the dead back to life in God's kingdom (1Cor15:45,47. John 5:24-29). Even sef, Trinitarians agree that Jesus is not God, the Father, Baba God Almighty.
Therefore, your argument is built on quicksand. Shalom

budaatum:

That's my opinion too. The question then is, 'why?'

God's number one enemy,Satan the devil, hates the truth (John 8:44. 2Cor4:4. 2Pet2:1.John 18:37). Shalom

OneJ:


Oga Primesky, pls don't get it twisted. "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" is not "I am that I am".Both words do not mean the same thing at all. If U like make U twist am till kingdom come.

Does the phrase "Area Father" or Godfather" refer to God Almighty? Pls give your answer.



Pls read this post well well.
Baba God Almighty used your human father to cause your birth as a full blooded omo naija (through Adam the father of mankind. But, Adam lost the prospect of eternal life for himself & all his offspring).

But Baba God Almighty redeemed us thru Jesus Christ & gave him the title of Prince of peace, Eternal Father because your future prospect of eternal life squarely depends on your believe & exercising faith in Jesus as the God sent Messiah for your salvation.
Furthermore,by virtue of Jesus being addressed as the second Adam (also called the last Adam) ,he received the power to resurrect the dead back to life in God's kingdom (1Cor15:45,47. John 5:24-29). Even sef, Trinitarians agree that Jesus is not God, the Father, Baba God Almighty.
Therefore, your argument is built on quicksand. Shalom

Wonderful!. This is the height of it all. The bible said that this son that will be born will be called everlasting Father/eternal Father. So tell me, why will God give to Jesus such a title as His?, isn't that going to bring confusion?. But God is not the author of confusion, so what happened?

Jesus Christ is not God the Father, so who is He?.

Primesky:

God is not the author of confusion, so what happened?

If you check the original text, you'd find it is pretty confusing. So if what you've written up there, that "God is not the author of confusion", is true, then God could not have written the text being discussed. Someone, or something else, must have written it.

I'd go for the 'someone'.

Primesky:
Jesus Christ is not God the Father, so who is He?

A very intelligent and wise person. So intelligent and wise that people made him into a God.

OneJ:

The Greek manuscript is in lowercase.
The Greek manuscript transliteration of John 1:1 word for word, Greek to English can be Sourced from "John 1:1 wikipedia".
The Apostle John in John 1:1 never said " the word is the god" (Almighty Father). That's the unpopular truth that Trinitarian folks can not admit.

Did anybody ever said Jesus is the Father before?

Jesus is God which means He has ALL the attributes man know God to possess. Get that into your skull!

Even Jesus' critics know Jesus is God that's why they could say "...and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God"

Primesky:


Wonderful!. This is the height of it all. The bible said that this son that will be born will be called everlasting Father/eternal Father. So tell me, why will God give to Jesus such a title as His?, isn't that going to bring confusion?. But God is not the author of confusion, so what happened?

Jesus Christ is not God the Father, so who is He?.

Pls tell our fellow Nairalanders & guests whether U are confused when U call a well known man "Area father or Godfather" ?. Therefore, your opening questions lack merit & substance.


Primesky said " Jesus is not God the father, so who is he" ? Even Emusan , his partner in the Trinity fallacy said & I quote his statement: " did anybody ever said Jesus is the Father before ?"
My fellow Nairalanders & guests, una dey see how primesky & his fellow trinity peddlers. are confused?
Indeed, their brain always shut down in their dubious attempts to defend a lie Jesus himself neither taught nor believed.

Emusan:


Did anybody ever said Jesus is the Father before?

Jesus is God which means He has ALL the attributes man know God to possess. Get that into your skull!

Even Jesus' critics know Jesus is God that's why they could say "...and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God"

.. LIES ,LIES ,LIES !
Everybody pls see the proof below:

John10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these,", replied the Jews,"but for blasphemy, because you ,a mere man ,claim to be God" . The wicked Jews made those false allegations against Jesus. U may ask "Why is it a false allegation?

Jesus himself provided the answers....
John10:34,-36. "Is it not written in your Law,
'I have said you are gods? ' "
(Jesus quoted Psalms 82:6).
John10:35: "If he called them 'gods' ,to whom the word of God came- and the Scripture cannot be broken
vs36 "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said , I am God's son ?".

Jesus himself said he is the son of God but the Jews deceitfully twisted his statement &falsely alleged that Jesus committed blasphemy. Because they were desperate to kill Jesus at all costs.
Shalom.

OneJ:


Pls tell our fellow Nairalanders & guests whether U are confused when U call a well known man "Area father or Godfather" ?. Therefore, your opening questions lack merit & substance.


Primesky said " Jesus is not God the father, so who is he" ? Even Emusan , his partner in the Trinity fallacy said & I quote his statement: " did anybody ever said Jesus is the Father before ?"
My fellow Nairalanders & guests, una dey see how primesky & his fellow trinity peddlers. are confused?
Indeed, their brain always shut down in their dubious attempts to defend a lie Jesus himself neither taught nor believed.

My dear stop dodging the question. The bible has said something, answer it. Who is Jesus Christ?. I'm not asking you what anybody said, we're looking at what the bible said, your version agreed to it as well. So, Jesus is not the Father, who then is He that He will have such exalted name and position?. The bible is supreme not what Emusan said.

Primesky:


There's no justification for that. Stop trying to add what isn't there for the almighty God. Is Paul, Herod and Jesus Christ the same?.

Read this text below and stop this Antichrist stance.

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)
The Predicate Coming Before the Subject
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

https://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Prime sky,U come dey copy & paste wetin U no fit understand.
U & these ntgreek people , all of una dey confused. The only true God, Jehovah (Yahweh) is not a God of confusion 1 Cor14:33


Pls see the proof below: Make I quote wetin U done copy & paste.

"in other words,contrary to the thought that 'since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being 'God', the fact that the word 'God'is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was infact God in its nature" ( Jesus is a spirit being, just like God his Father. ).

" However,since (John 1:1c) does not have the definite article , it does indicate that this Word was not the same person as the Father God..".

The Trinitarian folks are a very confused bunch. The bitter truth is very obvious- their doctrine, although popular , is a man made fallacy built on the fraudulent corruption of God's word, the Bible since the 4th century CE.

Here is the gospel truth (John 20:30,31; 3:16 Matt16:13-17. 1 Cor15:24,28. 11:1,3. John17:3).
Pls accept it with a humble heart.
Shalom