Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's easy... it's called Godeon; the color of God. Next question...How do you describe it????
I have a few questions for you, Melody:Melody said:I have to agree with ND. When the bible says "In his image He created them", I believe it is in his spiritual image. Either that or we're talking about a being that is an hermaphrodite and, while that is certainly possible, it strikes me that such a powerful being would have no need to be limited by a corporeal body.
(3) What do you think it means to talk to someone "face to face, as a man talks to a friend"?There are a couple instances where God showed Himself to a few of His most faithful, but it was of His back, walking away from them. It would make sense that He would show them something they could understand. If God is a totally spiritual being, and I believe He is, how could Moses possibly comprehend the "face of God"? The bible is full of examples of how God relates to us in ways we can comprehend.
Let's look at what this means. It means that Jesus is in the form of God and equal to God. Remember this, though? Luke 24:39 saysLet this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
Jesus was raised in the flesh, and he is "in the form of God." So, God must too be in the flesh. Also, even though Jesus was raised in the flesh he is still equal to God. How can this be ifBehold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
If it were actually better, more powerful, for one to not have a corporeal body, then wouldn't Jesus, who does have a corporeal body, not be equal with God?Melody said:such a powerful being would have no need to be limited by a corporeal body.
but there is...HaShem is without beginning or end, an infinite being beyond our comprehension. If He were to have a physical form that would limit Him, which is something He can not be.Katzpur said:I know you do. I'm just saying that there is no real rationale for taking it metaphorically.
We can interpret all day long, I am not sure we will know what God meant until we get to heaven. Another question to ponder is who was God speaking to? Angels? I don't think so because God made us greater than the angels, because through His Son, we will be just like Jesus when we enter the kingdom of God. I believe He was speaking to the other two beings of the God-Head (God The Son and God The Holy Spirit) when God The Father posed this question. That's why Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM", meaning He existed from the beginning.michel said:I agree Linus; it would not make sense if it was to be taken literally, because it would imply that God has corporeal form; I am far happier with your interpretaion as 'being able to do good deed, to heal others....'
blueman said:We can interpret all day long, I am not sure we will know what God meant until we get to heaven. Another question to ponder is who was God speaking to? Angels? I don't think so because God made us greater than the angels, because through His Son, we will be just like Jesus when we enter the kingdom of God. I believe He was speaking to the other two beings of the God-Head (God The Son and God The Holy Spirit) when God The Father posed this question. That's why Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM", meaning He existed from the beginning.
The following from http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is quite interesting.may said:
Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been...john8;58yes, this goes along with the bible as a whole, that Jesus had been in the heavens even before abrahamcame into existence
Joh 8:58"before Abraham came into existence, I have been"
Gr., πριν ᾿Αβρααµ γενέσθαι εγω ειµί
(prin A·bra·am´ ge·ne´sthai e·go´ ei·mi´)
if we do our homework we find that there are versions from the fourth fith and sixth century that translate this scripture as it should be .Example of these versions areSteve said:The following from http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is quite interesting.
*
In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.
The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not.
Sorry, but you think that a translation that alters the plain text of the Greek is better than the original Greek because a few other translations have made similar errors? That's one of the weirdest arguments I have ever come across.may said:if we do our homework we find that there are versions from the fourth fith and sixth century that translate this scripture as it should be .Example of these versions are
SyriacEdition......before Abraham was ,i have been
Curetonian SyriacEdition...Before ever Abraham came to be ,i was
Syriac Pe****taEdition:Before Abraham existed, i was
GeorgianEdition Before Abraham cameto be ,i was
EthiopicEdition:Before Abraham was born ,i was ......so it seems that others recognize that this is the correct way to translate this scripture,why ?because it harmonizes with the rest of the bible
i am just making the point that the NWT is not the only translation to realize that this is the correct renderingIacobPersul said:Sorry, but you think that a translation that alters the plain text of the Greek is better than the original Greek because a few other translations have made similar errors? That's one of the weirdest arguments I have ever come across.
James
Which is saying exactly what I suggested you were. A more correct way of stating the facts is to say that the NWT is not the only translation to make a similar error. After all, it purports (as do the others) to be a translation of the Greek and yet distorts the plain meaning of the Greek text. That is not translation, but invention.may said:i am just making the point that the NWT is not the only translation to realize that this is the correct rendering
that depends on weather i think it is an error,and i think you know the answer to that oneIacobPersul said:Which is saying exactly what I suggested you were. A more correct way of stating the facts is to say that the NWT is not the only translation to make a similar error. After all, it purports (as do the others) to be a translation of the Greek and yet distorts the plain meaning of the Greek text. That is not translation, but invention.
James
Well said!IacobPersul said:Sorry, but you think that a translation that alters the plain text of the Greek is better than the original Greek because a few other translations have made similar errors? That's one of the weirdest arguments I have ever come across.
Furthermore, it's a doctrinally driven invention that severs the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.IacobPersul said:That is not translation, but invention.
No, it really doesn't depend on what you think at all. The use of 'ego eimi' in the Greek text is equivalent to say 'I am' (the I being stressed because Greek is a pro-drop language which doesn't need to use the personal pronoun except for emphasis). The purpose of a translation is to render the meaning of a sentence in one language into another language. The Greek used here is present tense and cannot be anything else. If, therefore, a 'translation' uses anything other than the present tense it is either an error or a deliberate deception. If you discount the possibility of the former then you are implicitly accepting the latter, which doesn't really come as a recommendation of the NWT, does it? As Deut accurately pointed out, the erroneous translation of the NWT also completely destroys the OT reference that is intended in the text.may said:that depends on weather i think it is an error,and i think you know the answer to that one
Once again, well said.IacobPersul said:Whether or not this passage is badly translated in the NWT (it certainly is) is not, therefore, a matter of interpretation. The only thing that is is whether you choose to interpret it as an error caused by poor knowledge of Greek or a deliberate and doctrinally motivated deceit.