Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-03-2002 at 08:30 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Akhay, Yukhanan 1:18. Akh Paul's literal translation parenthesizes 'of' as the proclitic d is absent. Perhaps the strict literal translation should stand? The GNT texts have Theos in the nominative case. That is to say it lacks the genitive case which precludes the translation, 'the only begotten OF GOD'. John 1:18 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Textus Receptus (known to have corrupt variances): John 1:18 King James Version (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. NKJV seeks to show in footnote the earlier more reliable reading which matches PNT. John 1:18 :: New King James Version (NKJV) No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,<1> who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Footnote: 1:18 NU-Text reads only begotten God. Chalk up another one for PNT. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 10:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Ahki Iakov, Tatian, Diatessaron at Jn 1:14 as the glory of the only from the Father, which is full of grace and equity omits begotten but Peshitta restores it. So also does P-66 have monogenous para patros = only-begotten from a father. Tatian was a Assyrian 170 CE. Now Tatian at Jn 1:18 the only, God which is in the bosom omits begotten but Peshitta restores only-begotten. The majority byzantine texts follow P-66 which has xxnogenes OS= an only- begotten Son. Strangely, the Vatican B follows the Byzantine here, this is a surprise for a GNT text better described as the Gnosis + T ext. . Tatian and Peshitta have God instead of Son. Did Tatian have the Peshitta text? Lamsa has firstborn in both places. Obviously there has been some tampering going on here and I suspect Gnostic influence in the Peshitta as the sense would require Son not God. Thus, KING JAMES proves again to be the superior text in this place. Boil and Bubble and Brewing. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 05:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Yukhanan, > Tatian, Diatessaron at Jn >1:14 as the glory of >the only from the Father, >which is full of grace >and equity omits begotten but >Peshitta restores it. So also >does P-66 have monogenous para >patros = only-begotten from a >father. Tatian was a Assyrian >170 CE. So is Diatesseron correct in 14 or 18? If you deduce he was correct in 14 your KJV is WRONG as all texts agree on 'monogenous'. If you opt that 18 is correct your theology is wrong as 'in the bosom' shows humanity not divinity. Now Tatian at >Jn 1:18 the only, God >which is in the bosom >omits begotten but Peshitta restores >only-begotten. The majority byzantine texts >follow P-66 which has xxnogenes >OS= an only- begotten Son. >Strangely, the Vatican B follows >the Byzantine here, this is >a surprise for a GNT >text better described as the >Gnosis + T ext. >. Tatian and Peshitta have >God instead of Son. Did >Tatian have the Peshitta text? >Lamsa has firstborn in both >places. Obviously there has been >some tampering going on here
Absolutely, as it is well noted in textual criticism the more difficult text is preferred as later scribes glossed the reading away. The earlier text is to be preferred as even later English translations try to change nominative to genitive.
Peshitta is right on here as even P75 has 'ho monogenhs Theos'."The only begotten God". Just more evidence adding to the veracity of Peshitta. bwq9y
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 09:24 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Ahkay, Both Jn 1:14 & 18 agree that only begotten refer to the Son not the Father. In this the Byzantine and KING JAMES agree. But Peshitta and Tatian are midrashing verse 18 where in Greek and Aramaic there is no comma. Peshitta and Tatian are variants here because the older italic follows the Byzantine showing filius. Jerome says that he used the italic text for his gospels but the Gnostic variants for the rest of NT so I would suspect the Latin Vulgate has filius here also. This is proof that Peshitta can not be older Tatian or he would not have produced a harmony of the gospels. The east would not have accepted an abridgement to challenge the Peshitta. Tatians harmony is proof of gospel variants but he also followed the Byzantine in majority of places. I think it is important to remember that all the papyrus ms are form an area of extreme controversy where all the variants originated in Egypt. Thus the evidence points to the earlier italic text which Augustian and Helvidus thought more reliable. If we had an on line italic text to compare with this would prove authenticity and tell us the direction of the autographs. My cup runneth over. Ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-05-2002 at 04:07 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Shlama Yukhanan, > Both Jn 1:14 >& 18 agree that only >begotten refer to the Son >not the Father. In this >the Byzantine and KING JAMES >agree. That is because the Majority text contains the Byzantine. Keep in mind the reason Majority is so called is not because of its reliability but rather number of manuscripts. My secretary made an error in a note, before I noticed it was e-mailed to 3/4 of my clients. I corrected the error so the remaining 1/4 of my clients received accurate information. So you see more is not always right. More is better logic would mean the NIV would be the only correct English version as it outsells all others combined. Remember the Majority text has no extant witness prior to the fifth century, no Majority Epistle exists before the ninth century, and the church fathers quote almost exclusively from Alexandrian texts. In other words when critical study is made of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text. Dr. Gordon Fee as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? Now here we have modern Greek scholarship in agreement with Peshitta text. Shlama, Yaqub.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 09:24 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Ahkay, (send again to Iakav) Both Jn 1:14 & 18 agree that only begotten refer to the Son not the Father. In this the Byzantine and KING JAMES agree. But Peshitta and Tatian may have been corrupted here in verse 18 where in Greek and Aramaic there is no comma. Peshitta and Tatian are the variants here because the older italic follows the Byzantine showing filius. Jerome says that he used the italic text for his gospels but Origens variants for the rest of NT so I would suspect the Latin Vulgate has filius here also. This is proof that Peshitta can not be older than Tatian or he would not have produced a harmony of the gospels. The east would not have accepted an abridgement to challenge the Peshitta. Tatians harmony is proof of gospel variants but he also followed the Byzantine in majority of places. I think it is important to remember that all the papyrus documents are from an area of extreme controversy where all the variants originated in Egypt. Thus the evidence points to the earlier italic text which Augustine and Helvidius thought more reliable. If we had an on line italic text to compare with this would prove authenticity and tell us the direction the autographs took. My cup runneth over. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 09:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Shlama Akhi John, This argument is the trusty old - "The text does not agree with me so it must be tampered with." !!! More importantly - Tatian did not create the harmony attributed to him, he completed the work started by his friend Justin Martyr in Rome. Then he translated it into Aramaic. The harmony was considered heretical in most places even though it was popular in places like Edessa and Antioch. That's why no copies exist anymore in the Aramaic - they were all destroyed on purpose. It never took hold in the East where the Peshitta reigned. The Peshitta is older than Justin Martyr's/Tatian's harmony. There is some eye-popping evidence on this very topic coming from Oxford University in England - and I will post it in about 8 weeks when I receive the research material. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 09:47 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, Very well documented post and fantastic evidence. John - your silence on Romans 9:5 in the Peshitta speaks volumes. I know, I know - it doesn't agree with your theology so it must be tampered with!  Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Laco
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-05-2002 at 02:01 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Shlama all! I follow your discussion and I have something to mix it better... In GNT John 1, 18 you read : "monogens Thes ho n eis ton klpon tou patrs" It seems to be absolutely unusual to use the preposition eis (towards, to, into) after participle n. In Greek preposition eis is normaly conected with accusative and some motion, but here is missing (motion). It would be expected en t (dative). Why is it so? Im not an expert but what it could be the answer if you see this in Aramaic or Hebrew? Laco
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-05-2002 at 04:07 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #7
Shlama Laco, > >"monogens Thes ho n eis ton >klpon tou patrs" > Also notice the absent definite article in front of Theos denoting it as 1:1 D.O. >It seems to be absolutely unusual >to use the preposition eis >(towards, to, into) after participle >n. In Greek >preposition eis is normaly >conected with accusative and some >motion, but here is missing >(motion). It would be expected >en t (dative). VERY VERY good questions. Peshitta uses the proclitic b which would point more to the use of Greek 'en' with dative as 'eis' translates the proclitic l However some have pondered that this points to his exaltation after his resurrection since it is in the evangelist's prologue and not the narrative. That is to say John is Theologizing if you will. Some say it is only a synonym for the 'en' with dative. Others hold that the ')on' is imperfect tense but the first option seems more preferrable. Shlama Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-05-2002 at 01:29 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #9
Ahki Iakov, Are you forgetting no man can see deity at any time thus the only-begotten can only refer to the son. And John 3:16 agrees with me as does P-66 egapesen o theos ton kosmos oste ton vion ton monogene edochen God so loved the world so that he gave the son, the only begotten = the only begotten son. Peshitta reads he would give his Son, the only- begotten. So again the facts are clearly visible yet deity is not. Try again ahki Iakov. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 03:29 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Shlama Yukhanan, > Are you forgetting no man >can see deity at any >time 1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN with our eyes, which we have LOOKED upon, and our hands have HANDLED, of the WORD of life; John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD. 14 And the WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Let's play the matching game. What is the common WORD? 0tlm is a far reaching theological term in Aramaic. This term underlies LOGOS and finds significant use in the Targums with refernce to 'memra' as a divine passive. Refer to Andrew Gabriel Roth's book SOTC for more on 'Miltha'. (WORD). All things taken in context my friend for those willing to see so that: Mark 4:12 KJV That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. thus the only-begotten can >only refer to the son. You are right it does refer to the SON. So is KJV right in 1 Jn 5:7 or Jn 1:18????? > And John 3:16 agrees >with me Exactly Jn 3:16 is universally accepted in all GNT texts and John who is known to say the same thing in different ways does not repeat himself but uses Theos, much too strong for the Byzantine scribe, (BTW the textual evidence being absent from before 5th century is embarrassing for Byzantine), so he subs 'uios' as it occurrs in 3:16. You have just explained how glosses occurr. Thanks. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 04:33 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Ahkay Paul, (my free translation of Romans 9:5) 0xy4m Yzxt0 Jwhnmw Fhb0w Meshiikha he appeared from whom fathers the and L9d 0hl0 Yhwty0d rsbb over God (manifests) he who In flesh Nxb4t hld Lk You will praise For whom all Fhb0w 9:5 Nym0 Nyml9 Ml9l Nkrwbw Amen age to age from Bless and The liberty I took with this verse is forced to agree with GOD MANIFESTION in his beloved in 1 Timothy 3:16 : Verily, the mystery of Gods righteousness is great; it is shown in the flesh (of his son), justified in the spirit of holiness, seen by angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles, believed in this age and ascended in glory. Since we are talking about God manifestation that is Jesus exposed godliness which Colossians 1:27 says is a great mystery now revealed to all gentiles that God can be manifested in their lives. This is the apostolic gospel not that he is deity but that we can become godly.
jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 05:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Shlama Yukhanan, 1 Tim 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. >The liberty I took with this >verse is forced to agree >with GOD MANIFESTION in his >beloved in 1 Timothy 3:16 >: Verily, the mystery of >Gods righteousness is great; it >is shown in the flesh >(of his son), justified in >the spirit of holiness, seen >by angels, proclaimed among the >Gentiles, believed in this age >and ascended in glory. WOW. That IS liberty with a capital L. It all seems so clear now. Lesser spin doctors have worked for presidents and your 'sliperyness' is not too shabby either. PNT & Nestle Aland 27 doesn't even have 'alaha'. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
ValiantForTruth
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 05:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Shlama Yaqub, You asked, So is KJV right in 1Jn 5:7 or Jn1:18????? The KJV is wrong in 1John 5:7, and right in John 1:18. 1 John 5:7-8 7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. According to all early manuscripts this text (beginning with in heaven and ending with bear witness in verse 8) is an addition. The subject of this chapter is not God, but rather the son of God, the Christ. 1 John 5:1,5,13 1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 5) Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. The name of the son of God is Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22). 1 John 1 That which was from the beginning... (the beginning of what, the earth? or Christ's ministry?) ...which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN with our eyes, which we have LOOKED upon, and our hands have HANDLED, of the WORD of life;John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD. 14 And the WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Let's play the matching game. What is the common WORD? The OT (written in words that were from God ie. Gods Word) repeatedly spoke of the coming of the Messiah as a future event. It also told us how we would 'know' (recognize) the Messiah. It told us of things to look for, things he would do, etc. When Jesus was born, those WORDS (God's Word) became flesh ie.God's Words came to pass - Jesus was no longer something spoken and written about, he was now here, 'in the flesh,' just as God had promised. Jesus is referred to as the Word because he literally always did what God told him to do and say. It was as if God was literally here on earth. Jesus spoke FOR God, and acted according to Gods Words which God communicated to him. But that did not make him literally God in the flesh, but rather he was 'figuratively' God in the flesh. The Word BECAME flesh is not literal - it's a metaphor. It is the same as when Jesus said about the bread and wine this IS my body, and this IS my blood. These were not LITERAL statements of fact, they also are metaphors. The bread REPRESENTS his body; the wine REPRESENTS his blood. Jesus is not God, he DECLARED God, in word and deed. He demonstrated what it would be like if God were on earth it was AS IF God were here on earth. This is clearly a metaphor (in contrast to simile, which uses like or as to make a comparison, or 'hypocatastasis' which is a comparison by implication). A metaphor is a stronger comparison than a simile, but not as strong as a hypocatastasis. While the simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the Metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing IS the other. {Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, EW Bullinger, page 735} Jesus was a living epistle (ie. words made flesh) known and read of all men. We are also to be living epistles (2Cor.3:2-3). The works that he did, we are to do also AND GREATER works. How is it that we could ever do GREATER works than God? Knowing what are the 'exact words' in the scriptures does not mean that we are going to automatically understand their meaning correctly. We must still 'rightly divide' the scriptures. Agape, Don
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 09:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
Ahki Iakov, I forgot the estrangla font tag just transfer to word & overlap line with estrangla font in word to see text. I took the (Syrian) Peshito reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 which was supposedly derived from the Greek so we might ask Is God inferred for he who in some ms? The Peshitta reads as follows: 0zr0 wh Br ty0ryr4w the mystery he was great truly and Ylgt0d Fwn0kd 0nh Which was to be manifested righteousness of this rsbb In flesh Literally: And truly he was this great mystery of righteousness which was to be manifested in flesh Did you notice the d the relative pronoun which before the ethpeal perfect verb manifest thus Jesus manifested the mystery of righteousness or godliness (KING JAMES). checking out the word manifest in 1 John 3:2, 3:5 as applied to 'likeness'. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 09:51 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #15
Shlama Akhi John, Nice try on the Aramaic but it's almost completely off because of your translation of one key word - whether you mistranslated intentionally or not is left up to the reader to decide. The primary meaning of the root GLY is "to "reveal". The meaning of the Aramaic is: "And truly great is this mystery of righteousness - He who was revealed in the flesh" Nice try, though. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-06-2002 at 09:35 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
Shlama Akhi Don, You said: >Let's play the matching game. OK - let's. >The OT (written in words that >were from God ie. >Gods Word) repeatedly spoke of >the coming of the Messiah >as a future event. Absolutely. >It also told us how >we would 'know' (recognize) the >Messiah. It told us >of things to look for, >things he would do, etc. YUP. >When Jesus was born, those WORDS >(God's Word) became flesh >ie.God's Words came to pass >- Jesus was no longer >something spoken and written about, >he was now here, 'in >the flesh,' just as God >had promised. This is where your logic is totally off. Since we're playing the match game - match up all the places where the Apostles themselves call Mesikha - Marya. You don't call someone "The Lord Yah" if he is simply the fulfillment of prophecy - of God's literal written word. The anti-Christ will be a future fulfillment of God's literal written word. Are we to call him "The Lord, Yah" as well? This line of logic is silly - not to mention heretical. Meshikha IS God according to the Aramaic of Romans 9:5 and scores of other passages. We are not commanded to worship a mere man. This is why I wanted you to study Qnoma in depth. Apparently, you still don't grasp the meaning of that word. >Jesus is referred to as the >Word because he literally always >did what God told him >to do and say. HA? What? If I literally always did what you told me to do - would I then be called your word? Am I not my own person? Where did you get this line of reasoning from? It certainly is absent from the Semitic mindset. We don't call someone someone else's word simply because the someone obeys the other someone. Please come again with this one. >It was as if God >was literally here on earth. Not "as if" - but "IS", which in Aramaic is "Ena Na" - "I AM." > Jesus spoke FOR God, >and acted according to Gods >Words which God communicated to >him. But that did >not make him literally God >in the flesh, but rather >he was 'figuratively' God in >the flesh. That's a new one. "Figuratively God in the flesh" makes you a mere mortal and a human bean. Nothing special. You need to study Qnoma. >The Word BECAME flesh is not >literal - it's a metaphor. Yes it's not literal and NO it's not a metaphor. It's the perfect explanation of Qnoma and of Hebrews 10:5 in the Peshitta where it literally tells us that He "put on a garment of flesh." > It is the same >as when Jesus said about >the bread and wine this >IS my body, and this >IS my blood. These >were not LITERAL statements of >fact, they also are metaphors. You cannot bring other topics into this and expect to have a clear understanding of this issue. Just because the Mercy Seat on the wings of the Cherubim was not literally a seat for God does not have any impact on this issue. Just because the earth is not literally His foot-stool does not have any impact on this issue. Don't confuse topics by making sweeping statements about metaphors and automatically equate the Divinity of the Messiah with those true metaphors. Nobody is saying that metaphors don't exist. They are saying that calling Mesikha "Marya" and "Alaha" is NOT a metaphor and if untrue would have made the Apostles BLASPHEMERS. > The bread REPRESENTS his >body; the wine REPRESENTS his >blood. Jesus is not >God, he DECLARED God, in >word and deed. He >demonstrated what it would be >like if God were on >earth it was AS >IF God were here on >earth. Oy vey! >Knowing what are the 'exact words' >in the scriptures does not >mean that we are going >to automatically understand their meaning >correctly. We must still >'rightly divide' the scriptures.
Your logic inheritently implies a large amount of subjectivety. The literal word is not something which can be argued with. You keep "rightly dividing" the word and being "valiant for the truth" - and it will lead you to call him Marya (Acts 2) and Alaha (Romans 9:5), too. Just understand what those two words mean when you do call Him that. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-07-2002 at 05:41 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
Shlama Valiant, >You asked, So is KJV >right in 1Jn 5:7 or >Jn1:18????? > >The KJV is wrong in 1John >5:7, and right in John >1:18.
How convenient. Are you getting this Yukhanan? >For there are three >that bear record in heaven, >the Father, the Word, and >the Holy Ghost: and these >three are one.
>According to all early manuscripts this >text (beginning with in heaven >and ending with bear witness >in verse 8) is an >addition.
I believe that is my point.
1 John 1 >That which WAS from the beginning.
Fair enough. Lets discuss Greek tenses. I'm sorry akhi Paul but I have to turn to Greek evidence here. There are several past tenses in Greek: Aorist= punctiliar past; perfect= completed past; pluperfect= duration completed past; and finally imperfect=continuous past. The tense of the verb 'to be' here is imperfect as in John 1:1. Why was imperfect tense chosen in both instances? What is the theological significance? In the beginning was (continuously) the WORD.
Now also in the epistle we have the same force "Who was (continuously) from the beginning". Sounds much like B'rashiyt Ekhad, Yes? Why not; In the beginning was the Word (at a point in time). Aorist. In the beginning the WORD had been. Pluperfect. In the beginning the WORD has been. Perfect. To say it simply; it is a tense that has no point of origin. So when we answer the question, "the beginning of what" in B'rashiyt we have answered it in the Gospel and the Epistle.
that we have HEARD, which >we have SEEN with our >eyes, which we have LOOKED >upon, and our hands have >HANDLED, of the WORD of >life; > >John 1:1 In the beginning was >the WORD, and the WORD >was with God, and the >WORD WAS GOD. > >14 And the WORD WAS MADE >FLESH, and dwelt among us, >(and we beheld his glory, >the glory as of the >only begotten of the Father,) >full of grace and truth. >When Jesus was born, those WORDS >(God's Word) became flesh >ie.God's Words came to pass >- Jesus was no longer >something spoken and written about, >he was now here, 'in >the flesh,' just as God >had promised. Please, please read Andrew's research in Signs of the Cross on 'Miltha', "word" as divine passive. This will help you understand Yukhanan. > Jesus spoke FOR God, >and acted according to Gods >Words which God communicated to >him.
Yes, but so did the prophets. That makes M'shikha no better if he delivered the word carried the word or even devoured the word. He WAS the WORD. >The Word BECAME flesh is not >literal - it's a metaphor. How convenient again. Remember this passage is not in a sermon or a teaching. It is in the apostle's prologue where he is giving the origin of Y'shua, much like Matthai and Luqa did in their prologues. This is NOT a metaphor. He >demonstrated what it would be >like if God were on >earth it was AS >IF God were here on >earth. John 1:1 The Word was (continuous again) GOD. Metaphor? IM-ANU-EL (With us GOD). Metaphor? Mark 2:7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Figurative? Luke 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. Okay this one IS a metaphor. 'Qnoma',"nature",Romans 9:5, Heb 1:3 Metaphor? Early textual evidence (P75) and Peshitta agree John 1:18. Are you saying Peshitta is WRONG? B'Ahava, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|