70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 2 times

70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Post #1

Post by Shermana »



An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

User avatar
Student
Sage
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library

Post #51

Post by Student »

jedicri wrote:
Student wrote: The synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome.

The synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo.
Regardless, the fact-of-the-matter is that the canon was formally identified and that from the end of the fourth century on, in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter. No other books were admitted or used.
This is simply not true. Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans is found in more than 100 manuscripts of the Vulgate, from the sixth to fifteenth centuries, including the oldest, the celebrated codex Fuldensis, c.546. It is found in manuscripts originating in Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany and Switzerland.
jedicri wrote:
The fact that Innocent I’s list was not the complete list of 27 New Testament books somewhat confounds your statement that “In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.�
Does this undermine the fact that from the 4th century onwards, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)?
I see that you are trying to dodge the issue. Re-read what you said:
In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today
You included Innocent I’s list in your statement. I showed that it was not identical, in that it omitted Hebrews. Ergo your statement is untrue. You have failed to acknowledge the error, therefore it shows that you are willing to be less than truthful in defence of your position.
jedicri wrote:
There never was a pronouncement by a central authority, such as the Pope, until 1443 A.D at the Council of Florence and it was not made an absolute article of faith until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
Indeed, and it still was these self-same canon of books identified at the synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 and 419, all the more demonstrating the Holy Spirit working and guiding the Catholic Church throughout the centuries thereby preventing Her from admitting into the canon of Scripture spurious works.

The Bible did come from Catholicism.
And yet the oldest manuscript copy of the Vulgate contains a spurious work, the Epistle to the Laodiceans. You express your opinions as fact, yet the evidence proves you wrong.

The first list that conforms to the modern canon was produced by Alexandria, not Rome.
Rome did not pronounce upon the matter until the council of Florence:

“It was not until the Council of Florence (1439 – 43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon.�(Metzger. B.M.; The Canon of the New Testament, Its Origen, Development and Significance; p.240)

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #52

Post by jedicri »

Student wrote:
jedicri wrote:
Student wrote:Your claims have no historical basis.
History says otherwise as I will show herein...
jedicri,
Please don't insult my intelligence by posting yet another extensive cut & paste, this time from a Roman Catholic propagandist website, and claiming it is factually correct.

Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.

Unless you can provide evidence, from recognised, objective historians, I consider the matter closed. I have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church did not determine the canon and that it is not uniquely placed to interpret the New Testament.
On the contrary, I have shown that the early Church on the day of Pentacost is the self-same Catholic Church of today simply by demonstrating that Her teachings then, are exactly the same today and will be until the end of time. The writings of the early Church Fathers bear this out and not one Protestant denomination can claim these Father's writings as part of their own church history save the Catholic Church. By this fact alone, it is easy to infer and to conclude that no other Christian demonimation, other than the original Christian Church (Catholicsim), could have possibly have canonized the Bible we have today. Taken with history and historical writings provided above, this is plain logic and right reason.

Of course you would easily discount a Catholic site as I probably would discount a Protestant site. I have read what such Protestant sites have written of the Catholic Church (such as attributing Her as the "whore of Babylon") but that in and of itself is not surprising considering the animosity between them since the Reformation. As it stands, the Pontifical list is what it is.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #53

Post by jedicri »

Student wrote:
jedicri wrote:
Student wrote: The synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome.

The synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo.
In Roman Catholic usage, synods or councils involve the authoritative meeting of bishops for the purpose of church administration in the areas of teaching (faith and morals) or governance (church discipline or law).
This is simply not true. Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans is found in more than 100 manuscripts of the Vulgate, from the sixth to fifteenth centuries, including the oldest, the celebrated codex Fuldensis, c.546. It is found in manuscripts originating in Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany and Switzerland.
When the synods of Hippo and Carthage took place in its respective years, the canons declared did not include Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, rather it matched the Damasan Canon (382) which has been that of the Catholic Church ever since.
jedicri wrote:
The fact that Innocent I’s list was not the complete list of 27 New Testament books somewhat confounds your statement that “In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.�
I see that you are trying to dodge the issue. Re-read what you said:
In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today
You included Innocent I’s list in your statement. I showed that it was not identical, in that it omitted Hebrews. Ergo your statement is untrue. You have failed to acknowledge the error, therefore it shows that you are willing to be less than truthful in defence of your position.
You seem to forget that during this perod we speak of and the years before it, there were places that found it hard to welcome the decisions made from the Church or as yet, accept the canons recognized years before (this may be the very case in Innocents I's situation). It was for this very reason that the African Church had the Synod in Hippo under the leadership of St Augustine to conform itself to the rest of Christendom --- the adoption of the correct Canon; but because it was opposed in the following years, three other councils found it necessary to formulate catalogues.

Now in your insistence that the canon of Scriptures was not always the same, show me where, in what council, etc. that shows that the canon of Scriptures are not the very same ones as today's Bible. In defense of your position, you choose to refer to a letter by Pope Innocent I, but we are discussing councils, meetings of bishops who are attempting to determine Bible canonicity. And so, my statement still rings true: In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.
jedicri wrote:
There never was a pronouncement by a central authority, such as the Pope, until 1443 A.D at the Council of Florence and it was not made an absolute article of faith until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
And yet the oldest manuscript copy of the Vulgate contains a spurious work, the Epistle to the Laodiceans. You express your opinions as fact, yet the evidence proves you wrong.
No it does not. The fact of the matter is: the Epistle to the Laodiceans is found in some, not all, editions of the Vulgate. Furthermore, the very fact that the Damasan list and the Canons declared later in Hippo and Carthage, Florence and finally in Trent, contained not this spurious work --- and this thanks be to God to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church --- shows that the Canon was indeed fixed since the 4th century by bishops of the Catholic faith.
Last edited by jedicri on Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #54

Post by jedicri »

Student wrote: Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.
Please. By your line of reasoning, I therefore cannot also use Catholic theological interpretations from the Bible to prove the supremacy of the Roman see.

Yeah, right; like that's going to happen....

User avatar
Student
Sage
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:10 pm
Location: UK - currently dusting shelves 220 - 229, in the John Rylands Library

Post #55

Post by Student »

jedicri wrote:
Student wrote:
jedicri wrote:
Student wrote:Your claims have no historical basis.
History says otherwise as I will show herein...
jedicri,
Please don't insult my intelligence by posting yet another extensive cut & paste, this time from a Roman Catholic propagandist website, and claiming it is factually correct.

Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.

Unless you can provide evidence, from recognised, objective historians, I consider the matter closed. I have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church did not determine the canon and that it is not uniquely placed to interpret the New Testament.
On the contrary, I have shown that the early Church on the day of Pentacost is the self-same Catholic Church of today simply by demonstrating that Her teachings then, are exactly the same today and will be until the end of time.
Please stop claiming to have proven this or that when you have done no such thing. You have shown nothing.

Take for example the question regarding the celebration of Easter. The evidence from Irenaeus and Polycarp shows that the Roman church did not celebrate Easter until c.160.

How then, can the teaching of the Church of Rome be the same, unchanged since the day of the Pentecost? The obvious answer, based upon historical fact, is that it isn’t.
jedicri wrote: The writings of the early Church Fathers bear this out and not one Protestant denomination can claim these Father's writings as part of their own church history save the Catholic Church.
I am convinced that you don’t actually read what you write (or copy and paste). If you did you would see that what you are saying here is in effect that “the Catholic Church� is another Protestant denomination.
jedicri wrote:By this fact alone, it is easy to infer and to conclude that no other Christian demonimation, other than the original Christian Church (Catholicsim), could have possibly have canonized the Bible we have today. Taken with history and historical writings provided above, this is plain logic and right reason.
I’m not sure where you quote mined this gem but it makes absolutely no sense, logically or grammatically, what-so-ever.
jedicri wrote:Of course you would easily discount a Catholic site as I probably would discount a Protestant site.
Except that I don’t cut and paste from Protestant websites. I have quoted from the works of recognised historians including Chadwick, Metzger, Schaff, Lietzmann and Harnack. Where are your objective, disinterested references? You have none.
jedicri wrote: I have read what such Protestant sites have written of the Catholic Church (such as attributing Her as the "whore of Babylon") but that in and of itself is not surprising considering the animosity between them since the Reformation. As it stands, the Pontifical list is what it is.
This debate is not about Roman Catholicism verses Protestantism. Show me where have I called the Church of Rome the Whore of Babylon? You cannot, and I resent your slur by imputation.

I took objection to your arrogant and offensive assertion that the Roman Catholic church alone is qualified to interpret the New Testament. I have demonstrated that your view is prejudiced and based upon an ignorance of the historical facts.
jedicri wrote:
Student wrote: Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.
Please. By your line of reasoning, I therefore cannot also use Catholic theological interpretations from the Bible to prove the supremacy of the Roman see.

Yeah, right; like that's going to happen....
Well, no surprises there!

So, to summarise your argument:

the supremacy of the Roman See is proven by how the Roman See chooses to interpret scripture,

ergo,

the Roman Catholic church alone is qualified to interpret scripture because that is how the Roman Catholic church interprets scripture!

You haven’t got a clue about circular reasoning, have you?

teddy_trueblood
Apprentice
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm

Post #56

Post by teddy_trueblood »

Forum Rules:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
....
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread
.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #57

Post by jedicri »

Student wrote:Please stop claiming to have proven this or that when you have done no such thing. You have shown nothing.

Take for example the question regarding the celebration of Easter. The evidence from Irenaeus and Polycarp shows that the Roman church did not celebrate Easter until c.160.

How then, can the teaching of the Church of Rome be the same, unchanged since the day of the Pentecost? The obvious answer, based upon historical fact, is that it isn’t.
You have conveniently overlooked the part where I specificlally stated that "Faith, doctrinal, moral and theological teachings be it from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century onwards was then and is still the same today. No other denomination can claim this, not even the Greek Orthodox Church." Moreover, I have already told you that these teachings of the Catholic Church, refer to the Apostles Creed, God's 10 Commandments, and the Oral Apostolic Traditions and doctrines that were further defined as seen through the theological writings of the early Fathers of the Church. The question of when Easter was to be properly celebrated was a matter of ecclesiatical discipline that would in no way cause the faithful to sin as it does not pertain to the teachings of Faith and Morals.

If you still insist that the Catholic Church's teachings have not remained constant since Pentacost, I challenge you to show me where in the writings of these early Fathers of the Church do the teachings of the Trinity, Purgatory, Mary's perpetual virginity, etc. have changed, and even other writings throughout the centuries that would contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church of today.

jedicri wrote: The writings of the early Church Fathers bear this out and not one Protestant denomination can claim these Father's writings as part of their own church history save the Catholic Church.
I am convinced that you don’t actually read what you write (or copy and paste). If you did you would see that what you are saying here is in effect that “the Catholic Church� is another Protestant denomination.
I'm sure you know what I meant when I wrote that. My point here is that it is the various and numerous (and still counting) Protestant denominations whose teachings have not remained constant but have changed many times over whenever one denomination decides to split from another because of their disagrements in interpretation of Scripture.
I have quoted from the works of recognised historians including Chadwick, Metzger, Schaff, Lietzmann and Harnack. Where are your objective, disinterested references? You have none.
The writings of the early Church Fathers are witnesses to the Catholic Faith which have been handed down to them from the Apostles; of note Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp where students of St. John the beloved.
This debate is not about Roman Catholicism verses Protestantism. Show me where have I called the Church of Rome the Whore of Babylon? You cannot, and I resent your slur by imputation.
I sincerely apologize as it was not my intent to do so.
I took objection to your arrogant and offensive assertion that the Roman Catholic church alone is qualified to interpret the New Testament. I have demonstrated that your view is prejudiced and based upon an ignorance of the historical facts.
Prejudice and ignorance of historical facts? Are the writings of the Church Fathers not a historical fact and undertaking and a demonstration of their living faith in Christ? Their interpretation of Scripture was a foundation of the development of theology that was to be undertaken by their successors. Note I stated "their interpretation of Scripture"; your example of Easter is irrelevant.


Student wrote: Newadvent is an internet organ of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore does not qualify as disinterested or objective source of historically accurate material when it relates to matters concerning the purported supremacy of the Roman see.
So, to summarise your argument:

the supremacy of the Roman See is proven by how the Roman See chooses to interpret scripture,

ergo,

the Roman Catholic church alone is qualified to interpret scripture because that is how the Roman Catholic church interprets scripture!

You haven’t got a clue about circular reasoning, have you?
Your conclusion is incorrect. The Catholic Church alone is qualified to interpret Scripture because She existed even before the Bible was finally canonized or even written (ie. the New Testament) and by virtue of the fact that it was She that canonized the Bible in the first place.

Also the premise you misconstrue since you would consider Catholic theology bias or subjective and not objectively based since you yourself personally contest or reject the supremacy of the Roman see. Or am I wrong in assuming this? Somehow, I doubt I am in doing so....

You claim I have shown nothing. But here are the facts:

the Epistle to the Laodiceans is found in some, not all, editions of the Vulgate. Furthermore, the very fact that the Damasan list and the Canons declared later in Hippo and Carthage, Florence and finally in Trent, contained not this spurious work: this shows that the Canon was indeed fixed since the 4th century by bishops of the Catholic faith.

All involved in the canonizing of the Bible were Catholic. This is indisputable.

Your claim that:--- the synod of Rome c.382 was not an Ecumenical (universal) council and as such its canons had no authority outside the see of Rome; and the synods of Hippo in 393, Carthage 397 & 419 were not Ecumenical i.e. general councils, but rather the provincial councils of African bishops, under the control of Augustine, so their canons had no jurisdiction outside of his see of Hippo; --- proves nothing because you have not shown that what took place there ever went against the Church's teachings on Faith and Morals. You will recall that I pointed out that in Roman Catholic usage, synods or councils involve the authoritative meeting of bishops for the purpose of church administration in the areas of teaching (faith and morals) or governance (church discipline or law).

And so finally I repeat myself once again and say to you: Now in your insistence that the canon of Scriptures was not always the same, show me where, in what council, etc. that shows that the canon of Scriptures were not the very same ones as in today's Bible. In defense of your position, you choose to refer to a letter by Pope Innocent I, but we are discussing councils, meetings of bishops who were in the process of determining Bible canonicity.

With regards to the facts above, I fail to see how the canon was not identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today.

arian
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:15 am
Location: AZ

Post #58

Post by arian »

I posted this, but no one commented on it:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV


In the beginning was the Word,
so that is not God, for God has no beginning or an end.

The 'Word' was 'with' God,
and not 'God was with God' so here again the Word is NOT God, for this Word was 'with' Him.

"The Word was God"
and we know God was always God, so the Word is someone else who used to be God. Besides, it would not make sense to say: 'God was God' if the Word really is God.

Let's see the image of God, Adam: God created Adam in HIS image. So Adam represents GOD.

Eve was begotten, or 'taken out of' Adam, and 'Eve' is now 'with' Adam.

Is Eve Adam?
No, Eve WAS Adam. Case closed.

Why?
Now just to make sure we don't confuse the Word with GOD, here is verse 2:

John 1:2
2 He was in the beginning with God.
NKJV


Who was with God in the beginning?
The Word, and not God, because that would be like saying; "The God was with God" :confused2:

John 1:3
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
NKJV


Who creates things?

God.

Through whom?

The 'Word' and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 1:4-5
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
NKJV


In this created universe God put another example of Himself and His Son who He calls His Word; Our sun represents God, for we cannot look in the sun nor approach it.

"The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us", as Jesus Christ, which we can compare to the moon.

The moon represents the Son of God, who was Jesus Christ in the 'flesh'. It is this Word of God Jesus who is that light that shines in the darkness, just as the moon reflecting the suns rays - I say what my Father tells me to say - shines at night, in the darkness. Here is that 'reflection' that the Word Jesus Christ reflected, not some doctrines made by man, (referring to the Catholic Church):

John 7:17-18
17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.
NKJV

John 12:49-50
49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
NKJV

John 14:10-11
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
NKJV


Odon

Peg
Student
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post #59

Post by Peg »

jedicri wrote:The way I see it, whoever determined the canonicity of the Bible would be, and is, the proper interpreter of Scripture.

you do realise that in the first century, the group who determined the canonicity of the bible were the religious leaders of the Scribes and Parisees?

Did they have the truth according to Jesus??? Were they correctly interpreting the scriptures pertaining to the Messiah?

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #60

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Peg wrote:
jedicri wrote:The way I see it, whoever determined the canonicity of the Bible would be, and is, the proper interpreter of Scripture.

you do realise that in the first century, the group who determined the canonicity of the bible were the religious leaders of the Scribes and Parisees?

Did they have the truth according to Jesus??? Were they correctly interpreting the scriptures pertaining to the Messiah?
If you are talking about the Christian Bible, there was no such thing as canonicity in the 1st century, nor did the scribes and Pharisees have very much to do with the Christian Bible. If you are talking about the Protestant Bible, put together beginning in the 16th century, the OT books that were included were those that appear in the Tanakh and those exclusive to the Septuagint are omitted. The Catholic Bible retains all the Septuagint works. During the 1st century, the Hebrew and Aramaic works that would later be formalized as the Tanakh and the Greek Septuagint co-existed as the Catholic and Protestant Bibles do today, both together with other Hebrew and Greek works that would not end up in anyone's Bible.

The first reference to a canonical Tanakh is in the late 2nd century. The first reference to the exclusive canonicity of the Four Gospels - the heart of the NT - also takes place in that timeframe.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... wish_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non ... al_gospels
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Post Reply