Jump to content
Guest BibleStudent

The Word?

Recommended Posts

Guest BibleStudent

There are 2 items that need to be confronted here and individually in regard to the above posts of stevepiv and seeking.

 

The introductory passage of John 1:1-3 needs to be understood in terms of John the Jewish disciple of Jesus and who was also know to the high priest. His thinking was in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, not in terms of Greek philosophy.

 

Word in Hebrew is dabar, for the most usage in the OT, as in the many statements of The Word of the Lord (YWHW). Any good concordance will confirm this.

 

What John is trying to state in his introduction is that the revealed will of God that was provided Israel through His prophets from the beginning of the institution of true religion had now materialized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah. This word was now to continue with Jesus further revealing the Father to the people and the Father’s will to his nation.

 

The logos of Plato as an eternal emanation from the One cannot be inserted as an interpretation, because it conflicts with Hebrew thinking in regard to the dabar of YHWH.

 

The second point of Jesus’ creation can be easily stated by again reading the Bible.

 

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

Rev 3:14 The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Ps 2:7 He (YHWH) said to me, “You are my son, today I have given you birth.

Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, God said, You are my son, today I have given you birth.

Heb 1:5 I will be to him Father and he will be My son.

John 1:14 as noted below

 

So the statements explain that God (YHWH) as a parent produced an offspring a long long time ago. Prior to this particular day, Jesus did not exist. His existence began the day that his God YHWH produced him, and then YHWH became a Father. Jesus was spirit just as his Father is spirit. All of this occurring in heaven and before any angels or demons or anything else was created.

 

John 3:6, what is born of flesh is flesh, but what is born of spirit is spirit.

 

Jesus was a separate entity, however he

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BibleStudent

There are 2 items that need to be confronted here and individually in regard to the above posts of stevepiv and seeking.

 

The introductory passage of John 1:1-3 needs to be understood in terms of John the Jewish disciple of Jesus and who was also know to the high priest. His thinking was in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, not in terms of Greek philosophy.

 

Word in Hebrew is dabar, for the most usage in the OT, as in the many statements of The Word of the Lord (YWHW). Any good concordance will confirm this.

 

What John is trying to state in his introduction is that the revealed will of God that was provided Israel through His prophets from the beginning of the institution of true religion had now materialized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah. This word was now to continue with Jesus further revealing the Father to the people and the Father’s will to his nation.

 

The logos of Plato as an eternal emanation from the One cannot be inserted as an interpretation, because it conflicts with Hebrew thinking in regard to the dabar of YHWH.

 

The second subject pertaining to Jesus’ creation (actually birth) can be easily stated by again reading the Bible.

 

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

Rev 3:14 The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Ps 2:7 He (YHWH) said to me, “You are my son, today I have given you birth.

Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, God said, You are my son, today I have given you birth.

Heb 1:5 I will be to him Father and he will be My son.

John 1:14 as noted below

 

So the statements explain that God (YHWH) as a parent produced an offspring a long long time ago. Prior to this particular day, Jesus did not exist. Jesus was not created as were other creatures, he was born, meaning he emanated out of his Father as a new and distinct entity. His existence began the day that his God YHWH produced him, and then YHWH became a Father. Jesus was spirit just as his Father is spirit. All of this occurring in heaven and before any angels or demons or anything else was created.

 

John 3:6, what is born of flesh is flesh, but what is born of spirit is spirit.

 

Jesus was a separate entity, however he was the image of his Father.

 

John 14:9 He who has seen me has seen the Father.

 

1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

 

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. (John 1:14)

 

It's all right there

 

You are Spiritually blind to the obvious

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial fallacy with the position is The Word in the Bible is from the Greek not Hebrew

 

The New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew

 

3056 logos log'-os

 

Wrong "word" and wrong language

 

Firstborn over all creation speaks about Jesus' preexistence

 

When was creation "created"?

 

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

 

Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

 

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:15-16)

 

The He in verse 15 is Jesus

The Him in verse 16 is speaking about the He (Jesus) in verse 15

 

If all things we created through and for Him that requires Him to be at the point of Creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BibleStudent

 

Apostle John is a Jew that is composing in Greek, or maybe he is dictating to someone in Hebrew who is translating into Greek. The Greek equivalent of dabar is logos, since dabar is translated as logos in the Greek Septuagint.

 

So the logos of John 1:1-3 must be understood in terms of its Hebrew equivalent, referring to the word of the Lord (YHWH) of the OT, His revelation of Himself and His law to His people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're simply offering speculation instead of allowing the Word to Speak

 

The NT was written in Greek therefore the Word is Logos

 

What about the rest of the passages

 

Since everything was created at creation and by Him (Jesus) "all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" Jesus is not "created" but eternal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BibleStudent

YHWH God gave birth to his son Immanuel in heaven, and then began the creation of all else in the universe, both in heaven and the material universe.

 

The following passage describes this event.

 

Pr 8:22-29 YHWH created me at the beginning of his works, and etc.

 

 

 

You're simply offering speculation instead of allowing the Word to Speak

 

The NT was written in Greek therefore the Word is Logos

 

What about the rest of the passages

 

Since everything was created at creation and by Him (Jesus) "all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" Jesus is not "created" but eternal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again another mistranslation

 

The King James states this

 

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Proverbs 8:22)

 

By the way you NEVER addressed you misapplication of the passage in Acts to support your views regarding food laws with a passage that had NOTHING to do with food laws but the racism people (molokans) are guilty of

 

Here's the link

 

http://www.molokan.net/forum/index.php?sho...amp;#entry53194

 

It would seem you need to continue your "schooling" and allow the Teacher to teach you instead of the other way around

 

You seem less than qualified to rightly divide His Word seeing as you have preconceived notions you are trying to make "fit"

 

It doesn't work that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BibleStudent

I use for general purposes the RSV translation, which is the version for my quotation above. The understanding of Pr 8:22 can be best understood by viewing translations other than the KJV:

 

Yahweh had constituted me the beginning of his way, before his works, at the commencement of time. Rotherham, Emphasied Bible)

 

The LORD created me at the beginning of his course, as the first of His works of old. Tanakh.

 

Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works. Jerusalem Bible.

 

The Lord made me his when first he went about his work, at the birth of time, before his creation began. Mgr. Ronald A. Knox

 

The Hebrew word qanah is only used as possessed in the KJV in 2 places; in the balance it is translated as acquire, and has the meaning of acquisition, as in the other translations noted above rendering the word as create.

 

So Yahweh God produced his Son, through whom He created all the balance of creation.

 

 

 

Again another mistranslation

 

The King James states this

 

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Proverbs 8:22)

 

By the way you NEVER addressed you misapplication of the passage in Acts to support your views regarding food laws with a passage that had NOTHING to do with food laws but the racism people (molokans) are guilty of

 

Here's the link

 

http://www.molokan.net/forum/index.php?sho...amp;#entry53194

 

It would seem you need to continue your "schooling" and allow the Teacher to teach you instead of the other way around

 

You seem less than qualified to rightly divide His Word seeing as you have preconceived notions you are trying to make "fit"

 

It doesn't work that way

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is part of your problem... The use of the RSV "translation"

 

The RSV adds in the Apocrypha as a part of it's contents and was trans-obliterated by the National Council of Churches

 

As cited before the National Council of Churches IS NOT Bible centered in their views but far from it

 

They are allowing

 

1) Women pastors

2) Alternate lifestyles

3) Other non-Christian religions (Muslim, Buddism etc...) are viewed as "a way"

4) Gaia (Earth worship)

5) Pluralism

 

No wonder your doctrine is messed up

 

You have a flawed foundation

 

This group is hardly Gospel centered and you're right there with them

 

Their "outreach" is alarming in that it allows for "many ways" to God yet the Bible clearly does not teach that

 

Interfaith Relations Commission

http://www.ncccusa.org/interfaith/

 

Ecumenical Advocacy Days

http://advocacydays.org/

 

The Pluralism Project

http://www.pluralism.org/

 

By the way you NEVER addressed your mishandling of the Acts passages to support "kosher eating" when it clearly has NOTHING to to do with that

 

http://www.molokan.net/forum/index.php?sho...amp;#entry53194

 

I cannot get along when you simply ignore the obvious especially when you are WRONG yet will "pop up" somewhere else as one who "knows the truth"

 

How is it you are able to "explain" the "truth" when you cannot rightly divide His Word and you are relying upon sources for your "translations" that are certainly not Biblio-centric?

 

 

Our alleged "Bible Student" used Acts 10:14 to assert the observation of the food laws when from the context of Peter's object lesson it had NOTHING

to do with food but dealing with racism and/or prejudice

 

Peter told them, "You know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean. (Acts 10:28)

 

Do you see that "Bible Student"?

 

What "False Christianity" are you taking about?

 

Helping anyone and not only doing Molokan things according to most of the elders of todays Molokans? Living a life according to the Bible only? Understanding that we are a sinful generation only a cross away from the Wrath of God? Worshipping with any Christians God puts on our path? Loving them that hurt like Jesus did? This is false?

 

Please do not say;

 

Pork Acts:10:14 But Peter said, No Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BibleStudent

I agree that it is difficult to find a translation that is Biblio-centric. So it is necessary to:

 

Study to show yourself approved unto God. 2 Tim 2:15

 

Both the KJV and RSV use bishop in 1 Tim 3:1, and other passages, when the term is actually episcopus, meaning an elder or supervisor. But bishops are part of the Church of England the sponsor of the KJV, and other churches that sponsored the RSV. (Even though the New English Bible uses the term leadership and leader).

 

The KJV uses Easter in Acts 12:4, when the word is paskha or Passover. Of course, because Easter was celebrated by the Church of England and by mistranslating the word, divine justification could be provided.

 

One other KJV error that has not been rectified in further translations, is naming disciple and apostle Jacob as James, because the Church of England felt that it would be easier to acquire the approval of the King James by naming one of the apostles after him, instead of his correct name, after Jacob the son of Isaac.

 

There are many more, but the above are 3 examples.

 

The balance of your premises do not deal with the topic at hand, and belong elsewhere.

 

There is part of your problem... The use of the RSV "translation"

 

The RSV adds in the Apocrypha as a part of it's contents and was trans-obliterated by the National Council of Churches

 

As cited before the National Council of Churches IS NOT Bible centered in their views but far from it

 

They are allowing

 

1) Women pastors

2) Alternate lifestyles

3) Other non-Christian religions (Muslim, Buddism etc...) are viewed as "a way"

4) Gaia (Earth worship)

5) Pluralism

 

No wonder your doctrine is messed up

 

You have a flawed foundation

 

This group is hardly Gospel centered and you're right there with them

 

Their "outreach" is alarming in that it allows for "many ways" to God yet the Bible clearly does not teach that

 

Interfaith Relations Commission

http://www.ncccusa.org/interfaith/

 

Ecumenical Advocacy Days

http://advocacydays.org/

 

The Pluralism Project

http://www.pluralism.org/

 

By the way you NEVER addressed your mishandling of the Acts passages to support "kosher eating" when it clearly has NOTHING to to do with that

 

http://www.molokan.net/forum/index.php?sho...amp;#entry53194

 

I cannot get along when you simply ignore the obvious especially when you are WRONG yet will "pop up" somewhere else as one who "knows the truth"

 

How is it you are able to "explain" the "truth" when you cannot rightly divide His Word and you are relying upon sources for your "translations" that are certainly not Biblio-centric?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...

 

It comes down to a matter of credibility

 

Your sources are questionable at best but moreso you cannot explain how you mishandled Scripture before in such a blatant and obvious way

 

If you cannot explain you misapplication of Acts 10 how can anyone take you seriously anywhere else?

 

You ignored it and moved on

 

It's quite simple

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear our "bible" "student" has nothing

 

They will ignore their obvious mis-handling of Scripture but waste time talking about the meaning of Orloff in an attempt to "spiritualize" all of the writings of mgr

 

That still does not address their credibility

 

Remember "If you cannot explain your misapplication of Acts 10 how can anyone take you seriously anywhere else?"

You know where this passage in Acts was cited Acts:10:14 But Peter said, No Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. to justify eating kosher yet the passage has NOTHING to do with that

 

The "orloff post" just proves my point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×