Unorthodox TheologyA forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism)
The concordant literal version, I have never heard of that one. Now that I know I will have to do more research on that version. It isn't even inclusive online where my multi version study is done. Multi-Source Bible Dictionary
I did check into this version I read how it came about in 1909, and is run by a non denominational non profit organization, who claimes not to be a church. I read much in the way of negative reviews during this search as well, which doesn't lead me to want to trust it.
Most of the truths I know have been revealed to me by God's Holy Spirit, I wasn't aware that there were seven of them either except for the seven written of in Revelation, each one representing one of the seven churches also spoken of in Revelation only.
I do believe in the trinity, for it has been revealed to me by GOD. Thus, I will continue to believe what HE tells me, until/unless HE tells me otherwise.
That's fair enough. I'm not really into the Trinity thing in a big way anyway..
The Concordant is a new version, and has been translated straight from the Greek, and most of the other Literal versions say more or less the same thing. The NASB is a very well known and respected version within Christiandom and says the same as the CLV anyway. I don't rely on the KJV as there are too many mistranslations within it.. over 2000 they say. Haven't really checked it out for myself except when comparing between the versions in e-sword it becomes apparent that it doesn't always say the same thing as the others.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the "I am" (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God.
This is just not the case. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., "I am."
Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am" (Acts 26:29).
Thus, Christians conclude that saying "I am" did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.
Do you think that posting in a huge font size somehow makes an otherwise false argument, true?
The problem with your argument is that the blind were outcasts of society forced to live outside the cities, much like lepers. They were considered to be sinners from birth. Since they were considered unclean they would never have been in the temple or a synagogue and would never have heard Torah. The blind mans understanding would have been the same as any foreigner. "Ego eimi" would have been a common expression to him. The Jewish leaders understood this.
Your argument fails again with Paul. He did NOT say "ego eimi", he only said "eimi."
This is taken from the Concordant Literal Version...
1Jn 5:7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,
1Jn 5:8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
1Jn 5:9 If we are obtaining the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God, that He has testified concerning His Son."
Which reads a bit different to the KJV.
This following is from the NASB and seems to show that Christ is the water and the blood. It is not speaking of the three being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but of Christ being two.. the water and the blood, and then the Holy Spirit.
1Jn 5:6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
I do not believe in a Trinity of three separate persons, but in a unity of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of the Father and Christ who proceeds from the Father... and the seven spirits of God... and whatever else He is that He has not deemed it necessary to share with us. But as to three 'separate persons'.. no.
Here is an early church father quoting 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV in the year 250 AD.
Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church.
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
Here is an early church father quoting 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV in the year 250 AD.
Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church.
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
interesting. you believe john1.18 says 'only begotten god' because a few early manuscripts say only begotten god, but most all the later ones say 'only begotten son". totally rejecting all other evidence except early greek manuscripts. yet here you reject all manuscripts in favor of early writings by some christians. only a few very late date manuyscirpts say these three are one. double standard. you reject non scriptural evidence for john 1.18, but accept it for 1 john 5.7.
be sure and watch the paint dry now.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Do you think that posting in a huge font size somehow makes an otherwise false argument, true?
The problem with your argument is that the blind were outcasts of society forced to live outside the cities, much like lepers. They were considered to be sinners from birth. Since they were considered unclean they would never have been in the temple or a synagogue and would never have heard Torah. The blind mans understanding would have been the same as any foreigner. "Ego eimi" would have been a common expression to him. The Jewish leaders understood this.
Your argument fails again with Paul. He did NOT say "ego eimi", he only said "eimi."
(Greek NT - (wh) w/ Grammar tags) Acts 26:29 o <3588> {T-NSM} de <1161> {CONJ} pauloV <3972> {N-NSM} euxaimhn <2172> (5665) {V-ADO-1S} an <302> {PRT} tw <3588> {T-DSM} qew <2316> {N-DSM} kai <2532> {CONJ} en <1722> {PREP} oligw <3641> {A-DSN} kai <2532> {CONJ} en <1722> {PREP} megalw <3173> {A-DSM} ou <3756> {PRT -N} monon <3440> {ADV} se <4571> {P-2AS} alla <235> {CONJ} kai <2532> {CONJ} pantaV <3956> {A-APM} touV <3588> {T-APM} akouontaV <191> (5723) {V-PAP-APM} mou <3450> {P-1GS} shmeron <4594> {ADV} genesqai <1096> (5635) {V-2ADN} toioutouV <5108> {D-APM} opoioV <3697> {A-NSN} kai <2532> {CONJ} egw <1473> {P-1NS} eimi <1510> (5748) {V-PXI-1S} parektoV <3924> {ADV} twn <3588> {T-GPM} desmwn <1199> {N-GPM} toutwn <5130> {D-GPM}
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Last edited by 2ducklow; 5th September 2009 at 11:21 AM.
Here is an early church father quoting 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV in the year 250 AD.
Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church.
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
interesting. you believe john1.18 says 'only begotten god' because a few early manuscripts say only begotten god, but most all the later ones say 'only begotten son". totally rejecting all other evidence except early greek manuscripts. yet here you reject all manuscripts in favor of early writings by some christians. only a few very late date manuyscirpts say these three are one. double standard. you reject non scriptural evidence for john 1.18, but accept it for 1 john 5.7.
be sure and watch the paint dry now.
How exactly do you think this post addresses anything I said? Cyprian was quoting scripture, "again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." There was at least one manuscript in existence in 250 AD which read, as Cyprian quoted. You got any mss. earlier than that? Nah! Didn't think so.
What does Gen 1;1 have to do with anything? You are right it is too easy, some mss. do not have "ego" only "eimi." Even if we concede "ego eimi" although it is questionable, the argument still fails. In Paul's statement there is a predicate, "all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, [a Christian, vs, 28] except these bonds." When Jesus said "ego eimi," John 8:58, there was no predicate.
What does Gen 1;1 have to do with anything? You are right it is too easy, some mss. do not have "ego" only "eimi." Even if we concede "ego eimi" although it is questionable, the argument still fails. In Paul's statement there is a predicate, "all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, [a Christian, vs, 28] except these bonds." When Jesus said "ego eimi," John 8:58, there was no predicate.
oh wow , you responded. guess the paint finally dired. \
so what you're saying is that unless someone says "I am before he was" they are not caliming to be god. Only people who say "I am before he was" are claiming to be god. And you base that upon what scripture? where did god say "I am before he was" anywhere in the bible?
but all that hinges on your false assumption that there is no predicate in 'before abraham was, I am",. the predicate nominal of I am is "before abraham was". so your arguement falls apart on two grounds.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Last edited by 2ducklow; 5th September 2009 at 12:41 PM.
oh wow , you responded. guess the paint finally dired. \
so what you're saying is that unless someone says "I am before he was" they are not caliming to be god. Only people who say "I am before he was" are claiming to be god. And you base that upon what scripture? where did god say "I am before he was" anywhere in the bible?
Here is what I said again. Since you obviously cannot understand it. Please tell me exactly what you can't understand and I will write it in simpler language.
What does Gen 1;1 have to do with anything? You are right it is too easy, some mss. do not have "ego" only "eimi." Even if we concede "ego eimi" although it is questionable, the argument still fails. In Paul's statement there is a predicate, "all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, [a Christian, vs, 28] except these bonds." When Jesus said "ego eimi," John 8:58, there was no predicate.
Linear Mode
