Genesis 1:1 , John 1:1

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't speak Greek so looking at it in the original will be of no help to me. I'm always going to have to rely on someone else's translation. I wouldn't bother with logic in these opening verses, both for Genesis and John poetic metre mattered more than literal precision. My current position is that John appears to make the claim in his preamble. So ...[text shortened]... widen it to include the other Gospels, but that would make the scope of the discussion too big.

I disagree because unless you can understand the original then you have absolutely no way of knowing if the translation or translations that you are viewing are accurate. A direct consequence of this is that even if your reasoning is logical it may be fatally flawed from the outset having as its basis a flawed translation. Looking at different English translations does not solve this problem although it may provide a more diverse flavour of the verse.

Originally posted by divegeester
Your exchanges with twhitehead seem to be based on you wanting to convince him that Jesus is God based on your perception of FACTS [sic] in the Bible.

As twhitehead is an atheist who does not accept the authority of the Bible nor that any of the key characters in the Bible ever existed, you insisting that he argue his position using only the Bible as ...[text shortened]... nderstand more about alleged FACT X isn't going get much traction either.

PS I'm a Christian.

If this a declaration of a fact in the opinion of twhitehead ?

Clearly the Bible doesn't say Jesus is God, that is a doctrine that was introduced after the time of the Bible.

If so then, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the person who put this statement forth as a fact, perhaps "visit a Bible study".
You wrote:

Suggesting that they visit a Bible study in order understand more about alleged FACT X isn't going get much traction either.

I don't understand the double standard. A good Bible study might inform him that John recorded in his Gospel that Thomas referred to the resurrected Jesus as "My Lord and my God." (See John 20:26-31)

Did Jesus correct him OR confirm him ?
Don't get me wrong. I am not holding my breath for twhitehead to be educated by this.
But for a newcomer to recommend twhitehead attend a Bible study is reasonable.

Why are you scolding him - Christian ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I disagree because unless you can understand the original then you have absolutely no way of knowing if the translation or translations that you are viewing are accurate. A direct consequence of this is that even if your reasoning is logical it may be fatally flawed from the outset having as its basis a flawed translation. Looking at different Engl ...[text shortened]... lations does not solve this problem although it may provide a more diverse flavour of the verse.

I don't think that this argument holds much water. Essentially you are making the Bible esoterica, your argument is that unless one can read the original text in the original language then any opinion is flawed. Since the original text no longer exists any documents you have access to may well be in the original language but are copies of copies of copies and who knows what alterations have been made in copying. A logical conclusion of your argument is that any belief is a waste of time as we cannot know the message. So why do Christians - or for that matter JW's - bother at all?

From my point of view what is of interest is what modern Christians believe and to what extend texts they have access to justify their belief. So looking at a translation, flawed or otherwise, is perfectly viable. Is KT's belief in the Trinity (I assume from what he has posted that that is what he believes in) justified by the translations of the Bible to which he has access?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think that this argument holds much water. Essentially you are making the Bible esoterica, your argument is that unless one can read the original text in the original language then any opinion is flawed. Since the original text no longer exists any documents you have access to may well be in the original language but are copies of copies ...[text shortened]... that is what he believes in) justified by the translations of the Bible to which he has access?

No you have created a strawman argument. There are thousands of extant papyri, codices and manuscripts which have been cross referenced to form a consensus. If you cannot read the text in the original you have no idea what the Bible may be saying. In the second clause of John 1:1 translated as 'the Word was God' the actual term 'God' is a predicate noun because it does not contain the definite article in Greek 'ho'. Now I think you can discern that this has a rather profound impact on the intended meaning of the author. Of what is of great interest is that the translators recognise the Greek idiom in the first clause. In the beginning the word was with God 'ho logos en ho theos' but somehow manage to forget it in the second clause. What you are infact reading is a translation which contains a religious bias but unless you examine the original you would never know and your arguments on the basis of a flawed translation are likely to be fatally flawed from the outset. To ignore it on the basis of some kind of claim that we cannot be certain is simply an appeal to ignorance. What we don't know rather than what we do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you have created a strawman argument. There are thousands of extant papyri, codices and manuscripts which have been cross referenced to form a consensus. If you cannot read the text in the original you have no idea what the Bible may be saying. In the second clause of John 1:1 translated as 'the Word was God' the actual term 'God' is a predicat ...[text shortened]... cannot be certain is simply an appeal to ignorance. What we don't know rather than what we do.

But you have said that unless we can read the Bible in its original Greek then we cannot understand what was meant. So my point was not a strawman. You are attempting to make it esoterica that only a JW who speaks Greek can understand.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it here. On the one hand you criticize any version of the Bible we have access to. On the other claim that the ones you have access to are adequate. We already know that there are potential problems with the translation. This is why I'm suggesting that we look at the narrative to see if there is anything there to justify the claim.

If you want to point out problems with the translation, go ahead. That adds something to the debate. Instead you're trying to kill it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, I see sense in that.
A book is indeed a great carrier of wisdom and can be a useful guide and educator. When it comes to the Bible however, 'some' Christians will present it as the source of 'all' knowledge and as a barrier to 'new' knowledge. (Hinds is a good example of this and will dispute 'new science' that he believes contradicts the all e ...[text shortened]... Christians, as in the OP, to speak of biblical facts, which apparently are not open for dispute.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Fundamentalists put God into a very small box and they think that's all God is. I maintain that God doesn't tell us everything. I find etymology fascinating, and therefore I can imagine that things may have come about in ways that are not exactly how the fundamentalists think they did. Their literalism constricts them, and it constricts God.

Originally posted by divegeester
Wow!

All I said was that I found something funny and this triggers this harassment. Hypocrite much suzianne..?

That you call this "harassment" also says much.

Just disagreeing with you is not harassment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you thought of looking at the verse in its original language rather than basing your reasoning on a translation that may be inaccurate? Also logically its not possible to be with someone and be them at the same time. Furthermore the context states that no one has seen God. This cannot be applicable to Jesus because many people saw him.

Oh, please, we've put this to bed many times.

You are debating apples and oranges.

I also thought DT was wanting a Trinitarian's viewpoint. You're chasing us off because we simply don't want to go over this yet again with you.

And as such, I'm out. I doubt DT gleans any info at all by discussing stuff with a cultist who has no clue about mainstream Christian thought.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, I know what you mean. Fundamentalists put God into a very small box and they think that's all God is. I maintain that God doesn't tell us everything. I find etymology fascinating, and therefore I can imagine that things may have come about in ways that are not exactly how the fundamentalists think they did. Their literalism constricts them, and it constricts God.

A thoughtful atheist nods in agreement.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have you thought of looking at the verse in its original language rather than basing your reasoning on a translation that may be inaccurate? Also logically its not possible to be with someone and be them at the same time. Furthermore the context states that no one has seen God. This cannot be applicable to Jesus because many people saw him.

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

😕

Originally posted by DeepThought
But you have said that unless we can read the Bible in its original Greek then we cannot understand what was meant. So my point was not a strawman. You are attempting to make it esoterica that only a JW who speaks Greek can understand.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it here. On the one hand you criticize any version of the Bible we have ac ...[text shortened]... he translation, go ahead. That adds something to the debate. Instead you're trying to kill it.

No you are still creating a strawman argument. Perhaps I shall be more clearer. If you cannot read the Bible in its original language then you must take it upon trust that what has been translated is accurate. Your objection to this was to state that we dont really know what was originally written anyway, an appeal to ignorance.

Your ludicrous suggestion that I have attempted to argue that only a JW that speaks Greek can understand the text is simply nonsense and is unworthy of any serious comment other than to point to its fallaciousness. I have provided an example based on John 1: 1 which admirably demonstrates my point.

I am not trying anything, I have demonstrated to you with an example of just how much of an actual quandary you are in. Why don't you make reference to the actual example that I provided? If the narrative is not an accurate portrayal of the original then the narrative is not the place to begin, is it? No we must begin with the original. This is my point and why you are having trouble accepting it I really have no idea and none of the reasons that you have proffered make any sense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, please, we've put this to bed many times.

You are debating apples and oranges.

I also thought DT was wanting a Trinitarian's viewpoint. You're chasing us off because we simply don't want to go over this yet again with you.

And as such, I'm out. I doubt DT gleans any info at all by discussing stuff with a cultist who has no clue about mainstream Christian thought.

Ummm the only thing that I seem to recall from exchanges with you is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you are still creating a strawman argument. Perhaps I shall be more clearer. If you cannot read the Bible in its original language then you must take it upon trust that what has been translated is accurate. Your objection to this was to state that we dont really know what was originally written anyway, an appeal to ignorance.

Your ludicrou ...[text shortened]... cepting it I really have no idea and none of the reasons that you have proffered make any sense.

That is not a strawman argument. It would be a strawman if I created an argument for you. But I didn't so it's not. Further I did not make an argument from ignorance. The original is not available. We do not know that the original was copied accurately. This is not an argument from ignorance since I'm not trying to draw a conclusion about what was said based on the case that there is an absence of information.

In your last paragraph of the post I'm responding to you basically argue that the whole Bible has been so badly translated that the narrative is obscured. If that is the case then any claim based on English language translations of the Bible is unreliable.

I think the real issue is that you want to stifle any discussion about the Trinity because it does not fit with your version of Christianity.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

😕

Clear Jacob was making reference to the angel with whom he just had a rather mammoth wrestling match. There are not a few entities in the Bible who are described as 'gods'. It seems a Western fixation that the Bible only mentions one God and that's the Almighty when in fact it mentions several.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That is not a strawman argument. It would be a strawman if I created an argument for you. But I didn't so it's not. Further I did not make an argument from ignorance. The original is not available. We do not know that the original was copied accurately. This is not an argument from ignorance since I'm not trying to draw a conclusion about what was ...[text shortened]... ifle any discussion about the Trinity because it does not fit with your version of Christianity.

You have made several strawman arguments attempting to utilize values that have not been explicitly expressed and you did indeed attempt to use an argument from ignorance basing it on what we allegedly do not know rather than what we do and using this a some kind of premise for negating looking at the original text. Personally i am done arguing with you for you seem intent on nothing more than petty bickering. I have given you an exmaple from the Bible based on John 1:1 , when reality sets in, if it indeed manages to penetrate at all, let me know. your suggestion that i am trying to stifle argument because of the trinity is as ludicrous your suggestion that only a JW who speaks Greek can understand the Bible, utter and complete nonsense, bilge-water I would go as far as saying.