I understand English perfectly but you want it to mean what you want it to mean. I see now and after all these years you are saying the him is referring to one single person and that is the him and the life in the him are both Jesus correct? I read the rest and I have been telling you the life in the him is Jesus and that the him can not be Jesus too. You have 2 Jesus's by having the him as Jesus and the life in the him who is separate as Jesus too.
In The Beggining
- Thread starter James Jones
- Start date
You do not want to explain how the him and the life in the him are the same entity? My comprehension is perfect and my best guess is the trin people want Jesus so bad to be the creator and are saying the him is Jesus and the life in the him is Jesus.
James Jones
Member
Sorry I wasn't ? thinking
It's already been explained to you a number of times. Let's try it this way. John 1:3 says, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." Can you please tell us who the "Him" is in the verse? Identify this person.
In Him,
james
The "comprehension" that is demonstrated in your posts is far, FAR below "perfect". It is nothing but mere denial and rejection of a text that is VERY self-evident as to its meaning. Any honest person with even a modicum of reading comprehension ability very easily sees what the text is saying and showing.
Last edited:
You need to prove what you say and not say you can see what the text is showing? How can the him and the life in the him be the same entity (Jesus)?
It is not Jesus because the life in the him was Jesus. That leaves one candidate to be the him. You have not explained nothing but say what you want it to say. I have explained the him and the life in the him can not be the same entity. I have over explained it to you all.
Terms so one can understand better. When the bible was changed from old english to new english to make understanding a bit easier.
Like you say he was with God in eternity from in the beginning. Now prove the Word (Jesus) was before the beginning?
Wrong again - All your posts have ever done is just deny and reject what a very self-evident verses shows.
You're wrong again. All I need to do is what I've already stated and done:
What the text is saying and showing is self-evident to any honest reader with even a modicum of reading comprehension ability.
You can deny and reject that all you wish - You may as well be denying and rejecting that water is wet.
And your claim of having "perfect" reading comprehension ability is as bogus as a three dollar bill. The "comprehension" that is demonstrated in your posts is far, FAR below "perfect".
Last edited:
No you are wrong unless you can show how the him and the life in the him are the same entity instead of telling someone they are wrong?
Because you want to include only the text you want them to see and not explain as you have been told many times to explain how the him and the life in the him can be the same entity?
Nope - You're wrong again.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
What terms?
"Other" is not found in the manuscripts from which the Bible is translated, including the NWT.
For example The Emphatic Diaglott published by the WTS 1942 edition.
Col 1:16-17 Because in Him were created all things -those in the Heavens, and those on the Earth, the visible and the invisible, whether Thrones or Lordships, or Governments, or Authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him, the he precedes all thing, and in him all thing have been permanently placed.
Printed in the Daiglott. [Greek Interlineary Word For Word English Translation]
"All" translates from 'panta'.
Missing from the Greek text is 'allos' which translates to
another (50), another man (2), another woman (2), another's (1), else (4), more (5), one (3), one another (1), one else (1), other (35), other men (1), other women (1), others (41), some (2), some another (2), someone else (3).
NWT Revised 1961 in the Forward on page 6 it reads. "[ ] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the English text."
In 1961 according to the WTS the three renderings of 'other' in Col 1:16-17 is not found in the ancient manuscripts from which the NWT was translated from.
NWT Revised 1984 the Forward does not mention anything about brackets, and the brackets are removed from 'other' as if 'other' was translated from the ancient manuscripts.
Prior to 1961 the WTS believed, taught and published that Jesus created all things, all thing on account of Him and for Him, and He is before all things, not all other things.
The only justification any serous biblical scholar can have for this, is a translation from ancient manuscript
Rather dishonest on the part of the WTS to state that this was done in order "to complete or clarify the sense" when they believed, taught, and published the opposite prior to 1961.
BTW 1942 edition of the Diaglott and the 1961 edition of the NTW are not considered 'Old English" and neither is the 1984 NTW edition considered "New English". Whoever came up with that did not think it through.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].
If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal.
Your imaginary line does not cut nor how you word it or how you want it be be what John was saying as when something is pointed out the trin people come up with some stuff. It clearly states the Word was in the beginning and nothing imaginary is needed to figure that out.
I am Exceptional as I explain things instead of telling someone they are wrong.
LOL! You don't "explain"; you merely deny and reject. All anyone has to do is read your posts to very, VERY easily see this.
I'm willing to allow honest and fair-minded readers to decide for themselves concerning this. NO problem.