In The Beggining

Compared to the old english, it is assuredly simplified and easier to understand.

Fact is why they changed John 1:1-- Years of hard study by many men because up to that point only had error filled trinity translations to go by.
If capitol G was correct-Then in simple english your 2nd line reads--And God was with God= impossible, there is only 1 God-- But it takes believing Jesus-John 20:17, Rev 3:12 but every trinitarian outright refuses and believes an error over him.
The Bible is written on a 9 th grade reading level . Most newspapers are written on a 10th grade level. You keep writing about simple English, but you have not identified what was so complex in the verses that had to simplified.
Also you continue to commit the fallacy Of appealing to authority. It must be true, because the experts say it’s true. This does not prove anything. Only the evidence does, so my question is what did these men who studied over a vast amount of time find in Jn 1:a or 1b that translates 1c as a god.

Btw it reads and the Logos was with God.

But if you are correct what type if god does that make Jesus?
 
Your usual response when proven in error

LOL! You haven't actually proven anything - anywhere, at any time. That is your recorded posting history for all to see. It is nothing less and nothing other than open, intentional, deliberate falsehood for you to claim you have. I am VERY content to let any and all honest and fair-minded readers review the posts on this for themselves. It will be very, VERY easily seen.
 
Keeping X in isolation allows you to spin the verse. Note its not "in the beginning" but 'in the beginning was'. If it only read 'in the beginning' you might have an argument for "and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created'.
But since it reads 'in the beginning was',

'Was' is in reference to the beginning, not when John wrote his gospel.
was = in the imperfect tense. Always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

Note the trail of pronouns. Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus through whom all things were made. Him in vs 4 can only refer to Jesus unless a new subject is introduced by name at the end of vs 3 or beginning of vs 4. There is none.
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
 
Keeping X in isolation allows you to spin the verse. Note its not "in the beginning" but 'in the beginning was'. If it only read 'in the beginning' you might have an argument for "and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created'.
But since it reads 'in the beginning was',

'Was' is in reference to the beginning, not when John wrote his gospel.
was = in the imperfect tense. Always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

Note the trail of pronouns. Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus through whom all things were made. Him in vs 4 can only refer to Jesus unless a new subject is introduced by name at the end of vs 3 or beginning of vs 4. There is none.
Was portrays an action in in the past time concerning in the beginning and not before the beginning because it is talking about in the beginning. The trin people try and try. And who was the Word with? God of course and since you actually think the Word was God, then you have 2 God's there the God the Word was with and the Word.
 
Keeping X in isolation allows you to spin the verse. Note its not "in the beginning" but 'in the beginning was'. If it only read 'in the beginning' you might have an argument for "and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created'.
But since it reads 'in the beginning was',

'Was' is in reference to the beginning, not when John wrote his gospel.
was = in the imperfect tense. Always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

Note the trail of pronouns. Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus through whom all things were made. Him in vs 4 can only refer to Jesus unless a new subject is introduced by name at the end of vs 3 or beginning of vs 4. There is none.
Also it it the Word you should be referring to as Jesus did not exist at the time.
See https://academicguides.waldenu.edu>center>subject and it was the Word at the time.
 
You really do not think things through Nathan. For example, you said, " It says in the beginning was the Word and not before the beginning was the Word."

Ok, fine, please tell us all here from John 1:3 whether all things came into being by Him and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being happened before or after the beginning? You just said the Word was NOT before the beginning, so who created all things at John 1:3?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
You better look up the word "with" and you will see the subject comes after the word "with". Thus the subject at John 1 would be who the Word was with. Say he was with her the subject is her and he was with her.
 
You better look up the word "with" and you will see the subject comes after the word "with". Thus the subject at John 1 would be who the Word was with. Say he was with her the subject is her and he was with her.
With, a preposition. 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). " a nice steak WITH a bottle of red wine." Or, "and the Word was with God." If your "with" someone you can't be that someone. This common sense according to the rules of grammar.

Moreover, look at John 1:2. "He was in the beginning with God." How can the Word be God the Father according to vs2? "He/God the Father was in the beginning with God, or God the Father was with Himself. You need to go back to grammar school (pun intended) and learn grammar.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
With, a preposition. 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). " a nice steak WITH a bottle of red wine." Or, "and the Word was with God." If your "with" someone you can't be that someone. This common sense according to the rules of grammar.

Moreover, look at John 1:2. "He was in the beginning with God." How can the Word be God the Father according to vs2? "He/God the Father was in the beginning with God, or God the Father was with Himself. You need to go back to grammar school (pun intended) and learn grammar.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
I do not need to go back and using your definition above of course if you are and not "your" with someone you you can not be that someone.
 
I do not need to go back and using your definition above of course if you are and not "your" with someone you you can not be that someone.
I gave you the dictionary definition with two examples, so refute it! Forget about you cannot be that person if your that person. Just refute the definition of "with?"

IN HIM,
james
 
I do not need to go back and using your definition above of course if you are and not "your" with someone you you can not be that someone.

If the word was God-capitol G, Then in plain english the second line reads-- And God was with God= impossible--There is only one God. Proving 100% The usage of HoTheos for the true God in the second line and plain Theos in the last line most assuredly is done to show a difference of what one was being called-God to the true God--god to the word-means has godlike qualities. Facts prove their error.
 
If the word was God-capitol G, Then in plain english the second line reads-- And God was with God= impossible--There is only one God. Proving 100% The usage of HoTheos for the true God in the second line and plain Theos in the last line most assuredly is done to show a difference of what one was being called-God to the true God--god to the word-means has godlike qualities. Facts prove their error.
Thanks for pointing that out and when they insist the Word is God they will have to be reminded to say And God was with God.
 
I gave you the dictionary definition with two examples, so refute it! Forget about you cannot be that person if your that person. Just refute the definition of "with?"

IN HIM,
james
On Google type in "subject in grammar" and the subject is before the verb. But when the verb is in the active form the subject of the sentence is the doer or the agent who or what causes the action. Who caused the action for the Word to create?
 
Last edited:
I do not need to go back and using your definition above of course if you are and not "your" with someone you you can not be that

I gave you the dictionary definition with two examples, so refute it! Forget about you cannot be that person if your that person. Just refute the definition of "with?"

IN HIM,
james
Because by saying the Word was God you all are saying God (the Word) was with God.
With, a preposition. 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). " a nice steak WITH a bottle of red wine." Or, "and the Word was with God." If your "with" someone you can't be that someone. This common sense according to the rules of grammar.

Moreover, look at John 1:2. "He was in the beginning with God." How can the Word be God the Father according to vs2? "He/God the Father was in the beginning with God, or God the Father was with Himself. You need to go back to grammar school (pun intended) and learn grammar.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
And the Word was with God. Is the verb in the active form since the Word was with God? See "subject in grammar" on Google. I sure do not need to go back to grammar school as I know the subject can be used in different ways and I look for the proof. If the verb is in the active form the doer or one that causes the action is the subject when you type in "subject in grammar" on Google. Who caused the action for the Word to create?
 
Because by saying the Word was God you all are saying God (the Word) was with God.

And the Word was with God. Is the verb in the active form since the Word was with God? See "subject in grammar" on Google. I sure do not need to go back to grammar school as I know the subject can be used in different ways and I look for the proof. If the verb is in the active form the doer or one that causes the action is the subject when you type in "subject in grammar" on Google. Who caused the action for the Word to create?
No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

Jesus is Gods master worker of Prov 8--He was the one beside God during the creation process. He gives all credit to God in Prov 8 because God is the only power source. He tells all he was created at Prov 8, which goes along with Coll 1:15--Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation. All creation occurred at the beginning. Trinity religions say its talking about him being born on earth-They are in error. Many errors are translated in to trinity translations to fit false council teachings held centuries ago by the religion that came out of Rome. Those religions have become-a house divided they will not stand. They fail this true mark 100%-1Cor 1:10--Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division.
 
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.
Was portrays an action in in the past time concerning in the beginning and not before the beginning because it is talking about in the beginning. The trin people try and try. And who was the Word with? God of course and since you actually think the Word was God, then you have 2 God's there the God the Word was with and the Word.
You are arguing "Was in the beginning'
But it reads "in the beginning was"

There is a difference.
Also it it the Word you should be referring to as Jesus did not exist at the time.
See https://academicguides.waldenu.edu>center>subject and it was the Word at the time.
John 1:1 does not agree with this but rather disagrees, and I explain this already.
But let's see what Isaiah wrote about Jesus and the eternal.

As it pertains to “Everlasting Father” = “Father of Everlasting” Isa 9:6.

6329 I. עַד (ʿǎḏ): adv. [BDB: n.masc.] forever, eternal, for ever and ever, continual, always, i.e., an unlimited duration of time, without end, and without reference to other points or units of time. {Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)}

עַד ad (723c); from 5710a; perpetuity:— all(1), continually(1), Eternal(1), ever(15), forever(26), forever*(1), forevermore*(2), old(1), perpetual(1). [Thomas, Robert L.: New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries]

5703 עַד [`ad /ad/] n m. From 5710; TWOT 1565a; GK 6329; 49 occurrences; AV translates as “ever” 41 times, “everlasting” twice, “end” once, “eternity” once, “ever + 5769” once, “evermore” once, “old” once, and “perpetually” once. 1 perpetuity, for ever, continuing future. 1a ancient (of past time). 1b for ever (of future time). 1b1 of continuous existence. 1c for ever (of God’s existence). {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}

Isaiah called Jesus 'Father of everlasting", on other words the eternal exist because Jesus exist.
 
If the word was God-capitol G, Then in plain english the second line reads-- And God was with God= impossible--There is only one God. Proving 100% The usage of HoTheos for the true God in the second line and plain Theos in the last line most assuredly is done to show a difference of what one was being called-God to the true God--god to the word-means has godlike qualities. Facts prove their error.
It should be noted that in the NWT “God” is capitalized, therefore translated as articular [carrying the definite article] even though being anathrous [lacking the definite article]. In the original language “God” is anathrous in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 but is translated “God” capitalized in the NWT. Within the New Testament “God” appears 282 times anarthrous, of which it translates the anarhrous as articular 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarhrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly. There is no question that from the context fifteen of the sixteen anarhrous theos were correctly translated, only John 1:1c is questionable.
Obvious that the idea of theos lacking the definite article translates to 'god' vs carrying the article translates to 'God'.
 
Jesus is Gods master worker of Prov 8--He was the one beside God during the creation process. He gives all credit to God in Prov 8 because God is the only power source. He tells all he was created at Prov 8, which goes along with Coll 1:15--Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation. All creation occurred at the beginning. Trinity religions say its talking about him being born on earth-They are in error. Many errors are translated in to trinity translations to fit false council teachings held centuries ago by the religion that came out of Rome. Those religions have become-a house divided they will not stand. They fail this true mark 100%-1Cor 1:10--Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division.

First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.

Ps. 89:20-27 . David is made for born, compare to 1 Sam 16:11-13 where we read that David is the youngest of Jesse's sons.

Gen 41:50-51. Joseph son Ephraim was born after Manaseh Joseph's firstborn. Compare to Jeremiah 31:9 where God makes Ephraim firstborn.

Firstborn = “prototokos” from root “protos” = first in time, first in rank, influence, honor, chief, principal, not first made. Jesus is supreme over all things, then all things belong to Him. If made, then, should be “firstborn of Jehovah”, or “creation’s firstborn”, not “firstborn of creation”.
 
Jesus is Gods master worker of Prov 8--He was the one beside God during the creation process. He gives all credit to God in Prov 8 because God is the only power source. He tells all he was created at Prov 8, which goes along with Coll 1:15--Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation. All creation occurred at the beginning. Trinity religions say its talking about him being born on earth-They are in error. Many errors are translated in to trinity translations to fit false council teachings held centuries ago by the religion that came out of Rome. Those religions have become-a house divided they will not stand. They fail this true mark 100%-1Cor 1:10--Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division.
Read Jamesh's post again. Who is the Lord your Redeemer Isaiah 44:24? Lord translates from YHWH.

Let's go to Isaiah 44:6 and we see 2/3 of the Trinity.
Since explicit trumps implicit, I submit the following. Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

כה thus אמר he said יהוה: Yahweh מלך king of ישׂראל : Israel


And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

ו: and הוא his/him גאל redeemer יהוה : Yahweh of-- צבא hosts


‘I am the First and I am the Last;

אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—


Besides Me there is no God

בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים : God


No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
I gave you the dictionary definition with two examples, so refute it! Forget about you cannot be that person if your that person. Just refute the definition of "with?"

IN HIM,
james
I refuted your definitions by showing who the subject is when the verb is in the active form at "subject in grammar" on Google.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.

You are arguing "Was in the beginning'
But it reads "in the beginning was"

There is a difference.

John 1:1 does not agree with this but rather disagrees, and I explain this already.
But let's see what Isaiah wrote about Jesus and the eternal.

As it pertains to “Everlasting Father” = “Father of Everlasting” Isa 9:6.

6329 I. עַד (ʿǎḏ): adv. [BDB: n.masc.] forever, eternal, for ever and ever, continual, always, i.e., an unlimited duration of time, without end, and without reference to other points or units of time. {Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)}

עַד ad (723c); from 5710a; perpetuity:— all(1), continually(1), Eternal(1), ever(15), forever(26), forever*(1), forevermore*(2), old(1), perpetual(1). [Thomas, Robert L.: New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries]

5703 עַד [`ad /ad/] n m. From 5710; TWOT 1565a; GK 6329; 49 occurrences; AV translates as “ever” 41 times, “everlasting” twice, “end” once, “eternity” once, “ever + 5769” once, “evermore” once, “old” once, and “perpetually” once. 1 perpetuity, for ever, continuing future. 1a ancient (of past time). 1b for ever (of future time). 1b1 of continuous existence. 1c for ever (of God’s existence). {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}

Isaiah called Jesus 'Father of everlasting", on other words the eternal exist because Jesus exist.
The question was who was the Word with in the beginning? I did not say "was in the beginning" as I know it says "in the beginning was the Word". You need to slow down and see a question was being asked.
 
Back
Top