Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[Capbook]

Rules made by translators who discovered that, for example, Greek cannot be translated just like English. It wouldn't make sense. There are English words that must be added to round out the meaning of the verse in Greek. If you'll notice, some translations, such as the King James Version, consistently add words to round out the meanings all through the Bible! Another is the NASB and also the American Standard Version. So adding words to the translations is not errant in itself.

Adding words that does not changed the main point is acceptable but the "God" to "a god," specially to a less credentialed translators will be questionable.

The main point is not changed concerning John 1:1c. John was differentiating between the one true almighty God and Jesus Christ, the Word. The Word was WITH God, so how could he actually BE God? The Word was what the term "god" means---an important, powerful, esteemed individual, not God Almighty.

You maybe interpret "God" as the personal name of the Father as there is only one Tetragrammaton. "God" is a title, it can be two or three be described with it. Like "mister" or "manager" a job title, you can have many managers.
The same author of the chapter described Jesus as the only-begotten God in verse 18, and why the next verses 6,12,13 and 18, was not interpreted as "a god?"

Many translations of the Bible do not say "only begotten God" at John 1:18. They say, "Only begotten Son." Why do you think you are right? Your other citings do not have anything to do with what 1:18 says. How do you think they are related?

The "only begotten God" is described as the original wordings of the oldest manuscripts papyrus 66 and papyrus 75 that support it.
Various readings as "Son" specially the KJV textual basis relied to the later Byzantine Text Type manuscripts but was not described as the "original wordings" on reference to Jesus.

[onewithhim]

Adding words that does not changed the main point is acceptable but the "God" to "a god," specially to a less credentialed translators will be questionable.

The main point is not changed concerning John 1:1c. John was differentiating between the one true almighty God and Jesus Christ, the Word. The Word was WITH God, so how could he actually BE God? The Word was what the term "god" means---an important, powerful, esteemed individual, not God Almighty.

You maybe interpret "God" as the personal name of the Father as there is only one Tetragrammaton. "God" is a title, it can be two or three be described with it. Like "mister" or "manager" a job title, you can have many managers.
The same author of the chapter described Jesus as the only-begotten God in verse 18, and why the next verses 6,12,13 and 18, was not interpreted as "a god?"

Many translations of the Bible do not say "only begotten God" at John 1:18. They say, "Only begotten Son." Why do you think you are right? Your other citings do not have anything to do with what 1:18 says. How do you think they are related?

The "only begotten God" is described as the original wordings of the oldest manuscripts papyrus 66 and papyrus 75 that support it.
Various readings as "Son" specially the KJV textual basis relied to the later Byzantine Text Type manuscripts but was not described as the "original wordings" on reference to Jesus.

I don't agree that "the only begotten God" is described as the original wording of the oldest manuscripts. I think that the Byzantine manuscripts have more to them than you give them credit for.

[Capbook]

The main point is not changed concerning John 1:1c. John was differentiating between the one true almighty God and Jesus Christ, the Word. The Word was WITH God, so how could he actually BE God? The Word was what the term "god" means---an important, powerful, esteemed individual, not God Almighty.

You maybe interpret "God" as the personal name of the Father as there is only one Tetragrammaton. "God" is a title, it can be two or three be described with it. Like "mister" or "manager" a job title, you can have many managers.
The same author of the chapter described Jesus as the only-begotten God in verse 18, and why the next verses 6,12,13 and 18, was not interpreted as "a god?"

Many translations of the Bible do not say "only begotten God" at John 1:18. They say, "Only begotten Son." Why do you think you are right? Your other citings do not have anything to do with what 1:18 says. How do you think they are related?

The "only begotten God" is described as the original wordings of the oldest manuscripts papyrus 66 and papyrus 75 that support it.
Various readings as "Son" specially the KJV textual basis relied to the later Byzantine Text Type manuscripts but was not described as the "original wordings" on reference to Jesus.

I don't agree that "the only begotten God" is described as the original wording of the oldest manuscripts. I think that the Byzantine manuscripts have more to them than you give them credit for.

The Byzantine manuscripts were described as later manuscripts, and I believe you've mentioned to favor oldest manuscripts as it might not be prone to copyist mistakes and addition. Papyrus were the oldest manuscripts except Genesis as described were written in clay tablets.

Besides, Westcott and Hort as "The New Testament in the Original Greek," render John 1:18 the same with NAS95.
Note that Westcott and Hort is not a translation, and the text were supported by papyrus 66 and papyrus 75.

(Westcott and Hort+)Jhn 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

(NAS95+)Jhn 1:18  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 the only G3439  begotten G3439  God G2316  who is  R3 in the bosom G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has explained G1834  Him.

[onewithhim]

You maybe interpret "God" as the personal name of the Father as there is only one Tetragrammaton. "God" is a title, it can be two or three be described with it. Like "mister" or "manager" a job title, you can have many managers.
The same author of the chapter described Jesus as the only-begotten God in verse 18, and why the next verses 6,12,13 and 18, was not interpreted as "a god?"

Many translations of the Bible do not say "only begotten God" at John 1:18. They say, "Only begotten Son." Why do you think you are right? Your other citings do not have anything to do with what 1:18 says. How do you think they are related?

The "only begotten God" is described as the original wordings of the oldest manuscripts papyrus 66 and papyrus 75 that support it.
Various readings as "Son" specially the KJV textual basis relied to the later Byzantine Text Type manuscripts but was not described as the "original wordings" on reference to Jesus.

I don't agree that "the only begotten God" is described as the original wording of the oldest manuscripts. I think that the Byzantine manuscripts have more to them than you give them credit for.

The Byzantine manuscripts were described as later manuscripts, and I believe you've mentioned to favor oldest manuscripts as it might not be prone to copyist mistakes and addition. Papyrus were the oldest manuscripts except Genesis as described were written in clay tablets.

Besides, Westcott and Hort as "The New Testament in the Original Greek," render John 1:18 the same with NAS95.
Note that Westcott and Hort is not a translation, and the text were supported by papyrus 66 and papyrus 75.

(Westcott and Hort+)Jhn 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

(NAS95+)Jhn 1:18  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 the only G3439  begotten G3439  God G2316  who is  R3 in the bosom G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has explained G1834  Him.

I would concede to the possibility that the early manuscript said "the only begotten god," instead of "Son." It is just as at John 1:1c......Jesus is a god, though not THE God Almighty. He is an important, powerful, venerated individual, which is what "god" meant to the Greeks. (And notice that he is a "begotten" god, meaning he was brought into existence by God Almighty.)

[Difflugia]

He is an important, powerful, venerated individual, which is what "god" meant to the Greeks.

Why do you keep saying this? Is it truly a form of Morton's demon?

Morton proposed that a similar demon stands at the gate of the mind of creationists and other anti-evolutionists that only allows in evidence confirming their worldview, and shuts out any contrary evidence. Such a thing would be an extreme case of confirmation bias, but would go beyond such a mere bias to confirming one's thoughts and would stray into willful ignorance. It is this demon that allows them to maintain their worldview in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We have a huge amount of ancient Greek literature available to us. In Book II of The Republic, Plato said this:

Still I hear a voice saying that the gods [θεοὺς] cannot be deceived, neither can they be compelled. And even if there are gods, and they do care about us, yet we know of them only from tradition and the genealogies of the poets; and these are the very persons who say that they may be influenced and turned by ‘sacrifices and soothing entreaties and by offerings.’ Let us be consistent then, and believe both or neither.

Plato knew what gods were and that they weren't just important people.