Another EV dichotomy problem.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Ah, the old "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" mime.

I call that being non-responsive.

This issue has been discussed several times here. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading.

If I knew that you had written a book on a particular topic that had been published by a major LDS publishing house, I would certainly make the effort to read it before I criticized your view on the subject. But, that's just me.

Have you read Colwell's article, or Harner's article? If not, you are simply uninformed about the debate over the exegesis of John 1:1 during the past 80 years.

You wrote:

Edited to add,

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

Your list was copied and pasted, probably from a Jehovah's Witness site. What is missing is any reference to scholarly discussions of the exegesis of the verse. The translations from the 1800s were done by anti-Trinitarians and generally by Unitarians who viewed Jesus as a mere man exalted by God, not as a preexistent divine being. Their view of John 1:1 is almost as hostile to Mormon theology as it is to orthodox theology. You even cited the New World Translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses' version, which was done by a group of amateurs and which has been widely critiqued by such renowned scholars as H. H. Rowley and Bruce Metzger.

[jmordecai]

Of course, you left out the JST.

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

John 1:1

Ah, the old "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" mime.

I call that being non-responsive.

This issue has been discussed several times here. Perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading.

Edited to add,

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

[Hick Preacher]

I liked his Judges rendition where YHWH talks to the Angel of YHWH. Both being manifest as People at the same time and place.

Yes, this is consistent with ideas represented by the Trinity. But The Trinity is of a different era attempting to communicate the same idea in different terms to a different audience.

Seeing Hebrew idea of God's Transcendence and understanding this idea of transcendence of the Highest God is a key clue as to why the Trinity was formulated in the way it was formulated in a later era- to a different civilization and culture.

In the Hebrew representation, a transcendent God in Judges Ch 6, is portrayed as speaking from on High down to Earth as one Person (to Gideon). Yet, at the same time and place being present as the Angel of YHWH speaking horizontally to Gideon and referring to God(YHWH)on High while still being tangible being(YHWH) standing upon Earth. This is consistent with the most basic and critical ideas about the Oneness of the Father and the Son found in the Catholic Trinity.

No wonder then why Paul wrote- I Tim 3

16 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

.

[Zakuska]

Of course, you left out the JST.

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

John 1:1

I have to give two big thumbs up for the JST on this verse. Its completely clear and articulates the truth SO much more sussinctly. He truly was a Prophet of God!

[Zakuska]

Yes, this is consistent with ideas represented by the Trinity. But The Trinity is of a different era attempting to communicate the same idea in different terms to a different audience.

Seeing Hebrew idea of God's Transcendence and understanding this idea of transcendence of the Highest God is a key clue as to why the Trinity was formulated in the way it was formulated in a later era- to a different civilization and culture.

In the Hebrew representation, a transcendent God in Judges Ch 6, is portrayed as speaking from on High down to Earth as one Person (to Gideon). Yet, at the same time and place being present as the Angel of YHWH speaking horizontally to Gideon and referring to God(YHWH)on High while still being tangible being(YHWH) standing upon Earth. This is consistent with the most basic and critical ideas about the Oneness of the Father and the Son found in the Catholic Trinity.

No wonder then why Paul wrote- I Tim 3

.

You do realise that 1 Tim 3:16 is a verse that has been altered, but probably not intentionally.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: Who 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

Read more how here.

http://www.bible-res...xandrinus4.html

"Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16

[Hick Preacher]

The JST says to know God is to know that Jesus the Father, even His Father (in the JST Luke 10:23 interpolation).

23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

[ bold and underline added}

The modification by Joseph Smith to Luke 10 appears to be a Trinitarian-modalistic construct.

[Hick Preacher]

You do realise that 1 Tim 3:16 is a verse that has been altered, but probably not intentionally.

Read more how here.

http://www.bible-res...xandrinus4.html

"Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16

[Vance]

Hestia,

You wrote:

I didn't bring up the issue.

You are failing to understand.

What part of,

If you are going to dispute a point don't just refer to something written 20 years ago but spell it out.

Don't you understand?

And yes, it was you that brought up the book.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I brought up the book; you brought up "the issue" (Hestia's words) of John 1:1.

You are failing to understand.

What part of,

Don't you understand?

And yes, it was you that brought up the book.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

I'll have to disagree and give the JST two thumbs down on John 1:1. And how adding all those words to John 1:1 can be described as articulating the truth "so much more [succinctly]" is beyond me.

A translator's job is to translate the text, not to rewrite it to fit his theological views (inspired or not). By rewriting John 1:1, Joseph Smith did not make it clearer; he simply substituted an entirely different thought for what John said.

I'd be curious to know how you explain this particular rendering in the JST. Do you think it was a restoration of the original wording of the text, a clarification of the text's original meaning, a "midrashic expansion" on the text, or what?

I have to give two big thumbs up for the JST on this verse. Its completely clear and articulates the truth SO much more sussinctly. He truly was a Prophet of God!

[Vance]

Vance,

Two points:

1. Trinitarians agree that God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are two different persons.

2. The conjunction "and" does not always separate two persons or individuals; whether this is the case must be determined from the whole statement. For example, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" refers to one person, not two; "our God and Father" refers to one person, not two. In the case of "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," orthodox Christians agree that two persons are meant. If you want to have fun attacking the idea that such texts refer to one person, go after the Oneness Pentecostals, not us.

1) This is an example of "special pleading". In the real world the word "person" means a single individual being. There is no such thing as two "persons" being one being.

Let's look at the real definition of "person", from the 1828 Websters.

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

You'll find her person difficult to gain.

The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

6. Character of office.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.

2) Nice red herring. Basically what you are saying is that the scriptures don't mean what they say. As far as you agreeing that those (and many other) scriptures are referring to TWO persons, see above definition of "person".

There are NO scriptures that support the concept of the Father and the Son being one being. Sola scriptura goes under the bus again.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Yes, this is a variant in the manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16, and the original wording was almost certainly "who," not "God." We can know this because we have multiple manuscript copies of 1 Timothy. If we had no manuscript copies, we would never know that such a change had been made. Thus, having multiple manuscripts of the text, even with variants, is better than none at all. Agreed?

You do realise that 1 Tim 3:16 is a verse that has been altered, but probably not intentionally.

Read more how here.

http://www.bible-res...xandrinus4.html

"Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Now you are shifting the debate from the meaning of a word in the biblical texts in question (the word "and") to the meaning of an English word that is not used to translate any word in the biblical texts in question (the English word "person").

What you fail to acknowledge that if you limit yourself to the definitions of person in Webster's 1828 edition, then the Holy Ghost is not a person. The first five definitions all stipulate that the word in those usages denotes a human being. The other definitions also will not include the Holy Ghost.

Oops.

[Vance]

Have you read Colwell's article, or Harner's article?

No, I haven't, nor am I likely too. If you think that something in those works would add to this discussion, you are free to quote it. Otherwise, I can only assume that you have no counter argument.

If not, you are simply uninformed about the debate over the exegesis of John 1:1 during the past 80 years.

That isn't a counter argument. If you have one, present it.

Your list was copied and pasted, probably from a Jehovah's Witness site.

That isn't a counter argument.

What is missing is any reference to scholarly discussions of the exegesis of the verse.

That isn't a counter argument.

The translations from the 1800s were done by anti-Trinitarians and generally by Unitarians who viewed Jesus as a mere man exalted by God, not as a preexistent divine being.

That doesn't invalidate those translations in the least. Ad hominem attacks are not counter arguments.

Their view of John 1:1 is almost as hostile to Mormon theology as it is to orthodox theology.

That isn't a counter argument.

You even cited the New World Translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses' version, which was done by a group of amateurs and which has been widely critiqued by such renowned scholars as H. H. Rowley and Bruce Metzger.

That isn't a counter argument for John 1:1. You are just attempting to poison the well.

Still waiting for a counter argument.

[Vance]

Vance,

Now you are shifting the debate from the meaning of a word in the biblical texts in question (the word "and") to the meaning of an English word that is not used to translate any word in the biblical texts in question (the English word "person").

We all know what the word "and" means. Its' usage in numerous instances clearly and plainly separates the Father from the Son. Now that you have admitted that They are separate and distinct persons, we move to the definition of "person".

What you fail to acknowledge that if you limit yourself to the definitions of person in Webster's 1828 edition, then the Holy Ghost is not a person. The first five definitions all stipulate that the word in those usages denotes a human being. The other definitions also will not include the Holy Ghost.

I don't see a problem with that. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, but not a person.

Oops.

Only in your own mind.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance says-

There are NO scriptures that support the concept of the Father and the Son being one being. Sola scriptura goes under the bus again.

BUt there are scriptures stating that Jesus's Father is Jehovah-- and Jehovah is Jesus.

And the Apostle declares that Psalm 2:7 is the prophecy of Jehovah calling Jesus His Son

7I will declare the decree: the LORD(Jehovah) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Heb 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Acts 13:30-33 30 But God raised him from the dead:

31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

[jmordecai]

Vance says-

There are NO scriptures that support the concept of the Father and the Son being one being. Sola scriptura goes under the bus again.

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

After citing the 1828 Webster's for the definition of person and getting burned once, one would think you would look up personage in that work before asserting that this word applies to the Holy Ghost. However, the 1828 Webster's defines personage as "A man or woman of distinction; as an illustrious personage," and subdivides this definition to refer to such a man or woman's exterior appearance, character assumed, or character represented. There is no room in its definition for the Holy Ghost.

Oops again.

I've got things I need to go do, and I don't know when I'll be back.

We all know what the word "and" means. Its' usage in numerous instances clearly and plainly separates the Father from the Son. Now that you have admitted that They are separate and distinct persons, we move to the definition of "person".

I don't see a problem with that. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, but not a person.

Only in your own mind.

[Hick Preacher]

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son...

[Vance]

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You haven't read anything dealing with the exegesis of John 1:1 except some unnamed web source from which you copied and pasted a select list of translations that have "a god" or "divine" instead of "God" in 1:1c. I don't have the time to educate you about preverbal anarthrous predicate nouns, the use and nonuse of the article in Greek, the semantic range of theos in biblical Greek, and the like. If you showed some sincere interest in becoming informed on the subject, that would be different, but you have made it clear that you have no such interest. Therefore, for now, I will not waste my time, leaving you to continue crowing ignorantly and foolishly that I don't have any counterargument.

[jmordecai]

Still waiting for the verse that says that the Father and the Son are one being.

Saying that They are one doesn't do it. I and my wife are one. Paul and Apollos are one (see 1 Cor 3:4-8 ). "We being many are one", (see Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17 & 12:12)

Are you your wife? Is she you?

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

[Vance]

Vance do you have a scripture that states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Godhead of Three separate Gods? or Three Separate Beings in one Godhead?

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man

[Vance]

Vance,

You haven't read anything dealing with the exegesis of John 1:1 except some unnamed web source from which you copied and pasted a select list of translations that have "a god" or "divine" instead of "God" in 1:1c. I don't have the time to educate you about preverbal anarthrous predicate nouns, the use and nonuse of the article in Greek, the semantic range of theos in biblical Greek, and the like. If you showed some sincere interest in becoming informed on the subject, that would be different, but you have made it clear that you have no such interest. Therefore, for now, I will not waste my time, leaving you to continue crowing ignorantly and foolishly that I don't have any counterargument.

That is not a counter argument. I can only presume that you are incapable of providing one.

[TAO]

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.