Timeline for Why John 1:1 in (DRB)(Douay-Rheims Bible) is not literal translation from the Latin Vulgate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2020 at 11:51 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @NihilSineDeo He means that he is trying to force / be blinded by a non-Trinitarian view onto the passage and so is resisting every explanation that his efforts to do so are in vein, or should be. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:52 | comment | added | salah | @RevelationLad again, your vision is right a 100%, so we should take in account the Context of the whole Bible Dialectically. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:47 | comment | added | Revelation Lad | @salah My point is you cannot get "a god" from either the Greek or the Latin text. Even if the indefinite article is appropriate, it has no bearing on capitalization. This is the deceptive aspect of answers to this question: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1161/… Because there are really two issues, one is only grammatical ("a" or no "a"). The other is clearly only interpretation ("God" or "god"). Settling "a god" on the basis of grammar alone is impossible. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:37 | comment | added | Nihil Sine Deo | Right, and given the OT is full of Trinitarian passages it’s no surprise John by divine inspiration explains Gen1:1 to us from the Hebrew confirms the word or the eth as being Jesus, God, the second person of the Godhead. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:20 | comment | added | salah | @RevelationLad what you say is a 100% right, so we should take care of the Context, and don't scamp. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:16 | comment | added | salah | @NihilSineDeo I mean we should read the text then adopt an opinion, not vise versa. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:07 | comment | added | Revelation Lad | @salah Capitalization is relatively recent element of language. Therefore, even if the indefinite article is intended the proper understanding would be" THE WORD WAS A GOD. Changing that to the English a god (or a God) has nothing to do with the Greek text. It is 100% interpretation. Those who believe the Word is God, render it God. Those who believe the Word is not God, render it god. For example, if the Word is a THEOS, then the Father must also be a THEOS. Essentially capitalization is entirely interpretation. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:12 | comment | added | Nihil Sine Deo | What do you mean by “the Trinity shouldn’t blind us”? | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:02 | comment | added | Sola Gratia | The idea that grammar depends on theology is a fundamental misconception of the nature of language and human communication. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:02 | comment | added | Sola Gratia | "literal translation may be of high necessity, even if not agree with the grammar of the translation language" One would think you were under the impression that every other language is just your own language, but with different spelling. Moreover, you have admitted to having an agenda which requires, according to your own admission, that you must overlook the rules of the grammar of the language, as well as the target language, at all costs, to preserve a sought meaning. If that's not equivalent at least to an implied trinitarian bias, or worse (for being hypocritical), I don't know what is. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:48 | comment | added | salah | literal translation may be of high necessity, even if not agree with the grammar of the translation language, like grammar of English in this case. Why they didn't translate it as "... And the Word was a god". The Trinity shouldn't blind us. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:40 | comment | added | Sola Gratia | "And a god was the Word" isn't really English; if one wanted to translate what in Greek meant that the Word was a god, they would have to translate it, "and the Word was a god." However, the Word being "a god" in the sense of "in the beginning God,.. and with God," was not a Jewish or New Testament category. Jesus is not a renegade god apart from the Father. What it means for the Word to be theos cannot be that he is a god among many gods, since the type of God meant here is already established clearly to refer to having the quality of being theos - i.e. divinity, being God by nature. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:17 | comment | added | salah | I think the literal English translation is: "... And a god was the Word" or "... And God was the Word" | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:11 | history | answered | Sola Gratia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |