AJ, Follow your heart. Let Jehovah’s spirit guide you. No matter how you write it, there will be complaints from those who love to “nit pick”, and would never take the time to write the book. “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.”(a) Not many humans are willing to take the time to figure things out. Most likely because they are lazy, or chose to be ignorant. The other problem, is to take someone else’s idea as truth. “One’s first step in wisdom is to question everything - and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.” - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg Based on other scripture’s in the Bible, things made are by the individual we know as “Jesus”, or “Michael”. Here is where learning to read, and understand, come into play. “In the beginning”, means something. What is it? In the Hebrew language, re’shiyth (rah-sheeth) is translated into English as: beginning. There are three places in Genesis where this word is used. By reading them, we can get the sense of the original word. ( Gen 1:1, 10:10, 49:3 KJV ) It can be translated as: beginning, chief, first, firstfruits. This word appears 51 times in the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures. In De 21:7 it says: “But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” The other word used in this sentence is also important because it is firstborn, which ties into the beginning. In Hebrew, it is b@kowr ( bek-ore’ ) meaning: firstborn, firstling a. of men and women b. of animals c. noun of relation (fig.) So, let’s look at the word; begin. What does it mean? “to do the first part of an action : go into the first part of a process. When John writes: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” We must understand what is being spoken of. Beginning: the point at which something begins : start. Is this beginning speaking of the creation mentioned at Gen 1:1 ? If that is the case, it is not speaking of “the word”, because “the word” already existed, to work along with the creator in the the making of all things. Look at John 1 verse 2: “He was in the beginning with God.” In the Greek, beginning is arche (ar-khay), meaning of: 1. beginning, origin 2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader 3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause 4. the extremity of a thing a. of the corners of a sail 5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy a. of angels and demons ( as in archangel ) The “Word” (Jesus) already existed when all other things were being made. The noun suffix “ing” attached to verbs to mean their action, result, product, material, etc., from Old English -ing, also -ung, from Proto-Germanic. Both of us have spoken of this a while back. Gen 1:1 says: “In the Beginning”; is a different period of time from “God created the heavens and the earth.” And, why is God used instead of GOD. (a) The Boxer - Simon and Garfunkel
Thank you brother, for that. There is nothing I focus more on then allowing his Spirit to guide me, so that I may understand truth, rather then my own perceptions. This is the very reason I am writing this book in the manner I am. In the hopes of reaching the broadest of individuals as possible. Here is an excerpt from my last chapter. Please excuse the condition, it is not edited yet. Remember too, I'm writing to mostly Trinitarians, so I have to draw them in... "What is the beginning spoken of in John 1:1? Many theologians teach that this beginning was that of Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1) This seems an appropriate approach; for, the very first verse of the Bible speaks of the beginning of creation of the heavens and earth. While even Christ Jesus, speaking of himself, indicates in the book of Revelation, that the Word was in the beginning of creation, “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” (Rev 3:14) (ESV) So then, the Word was with God in the creation of the heavens and earth. Right? If our understanding is that the Word is the intent by God to create, and it is the Word by which all things were created, then it should be understood that the Word did not exist before the creation of the heavens and earth. For if the Word was in the beginning of the creation of the heavens and earth, and it is by this Word the intent of their creation was made, then the Word is said to have had its beginning at the Genesis account. Is this not so? Not so fast… For, Jesus indicates that the Word existed before the Earth even was: “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (Jhn 17:5) Jesus, as the Word, says here that he existed before the world began; therefore, the beginning spoken of in John 1:1 is not the beginning of Genesis 1:1, when the heavens and earth were created. So that begs the question of what beginning John 1:1 is speaking of, when it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Jhn 1:1) If the beginning of the Word was the creation of the heavens and earth, how is the Word in the personage of Jesus spoken of before the earth was even created? A chronological mind, therefore, would at this point consider further Christ’s words in Revelation. “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” (Rev 3:14) (ESV) While again, some might suggest that Jesus here was speaking of the creation in Genesis, others may indicate he was speaking of his place of authority. The Greek word used in Revelation as “beginning”, is the word archē. Appearing a dozen times in the New Testament, and in only one place used as the term “rule” to indicate ones position of power; as in Luke 20:20, where its use was in conjunction with secular rulers within the Hebraic nation. In each of the remaining eleven verses this Greek word is translated to denote a start of something; such as in found here: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah.” (Mrk 1:1) However, we have a definitive understanding of the conceptual use of the Greek word archē, used in the book of Revelation as beginning, from Colossians: “And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Col 1:18) In seemingly identical context, Jesus is spoken of as the beginning in like manner, within both locations. As first in the book of Colossians, and by precedence in Revelation as well, it is clear, Christ Jesus is spoken of as first among the creation of God; rather then any explanation of his position as ruler. Revelation does not mince words when discussing Christ Jesus rulership: “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4)" Here is another unedited section of the same chapter on that subject brother... "Is Jesus GOD in the first book of John, with all letters capitalized? Yes! You see, in the original Greek, all letters were capital; and therefore, capitalization is not an indicator of nature. In fact, the term GOD itself cannot be used to indicate an individual’s headship within the text; only the context within allows for the conceptual understanding of the nature of the one spoken of. Why, there are many gods according to Scripture; and in fact, Satan is spoken of using the same exact Greek word Theos, or god, as is the Word, when spoken of as God in John 1:1: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (Col 8:5) We have to separate from our minds the idea that GOD is only used in association with our Creator. When you understand that even Satan is spoken of using the same exact word Theos, as is found describing the Word in John 1:1, we must understand that the word GOD alone cannot be used to indicate ones nature, nor ones position within any given context, without understanding the conceptual use of the word itself, within any given textual placement. In our modern use of English, we capitalize the word God when discussing the Creator, showing our intent to indicate that this is the one of whom is over all things, the giver of life; While we write out Satan’s status as god, without any capitalization, for he is the enemy of life, the original liar, who will be destroyed in due time. So, when we apply our modern concepts of capitalization to the original texts, we allow for the implementation of personal interpretation, and this is not a good approach in understanding headship within the Bible; especially when two God’s are spoken of, as is the case of John 1:1. What we want to know instead is exactly what the text is intending to teach us, not what our modern concepts of capitalization should be. There are yet others that transcribe the Word in John 1:1 as god, with no capitalization at all. Is this type of translation correct? Yes! We could translate the term as God, GOD, god, and it would all be irrelevant. The term is only used here to indicate positions of power; and when two or more are discussed within a text, only the concept in which it is used, in correlation with all cross-references, can one understand the relationships, and positions of the individuals spoken. After all, is this not the very subject we are highlighting; Who is God? With this in mind, can we understand the moniker of God given to the Word, as an indication that he never had a beginning? As an example, we read of Jesus as God in Hebrews, along side God: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature a God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!” (Heb 2:5-8) Again, here we have Jesus spoken of as a God, in singular identity, separate from the second, who is called God. Many would argue that Jesus is the very same individual, or a personage of the tetragrammaton YHWH, in the Old Testament. Foremost within their argument is simply the fact that he is spoken of with the ruling term of God; however, it must be reiterated, one cannot combine two individually spoken entities into a singular being, simply on the basis they are both spoken of as ruling. The term Theos is not an identifier unto the Creator alone. Is Jesus to be worshiped? Should our prayers be directed unto him? Jesus himself never indicated this; In fact, he quite clearly stated that all prayers should be directed to the Father: “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.” (Mth 6:9) The Father’s name in Hebrew is represented by the tetragram YHWH, or JHVH. In English the most common translations are Yahweh, or more commonly in use, Jehovah. Simply Father is appropriate as well, for even Jesus himself indicated that no one should even call him Father: “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Mth 23:9) Some may argue that we don’t have an accurate understanding of how the name of God was pronounced among the ancient Hebrews, so we shouldn’t use it. In reality, it is not the pronunciation that important, but that of the intent of the prayerful. Even my own personal name is pronounced differently among my many friends from all around the world. While it is through the Lord Christ Jesus our prayers are directed to the Father, it is Jehovah we should be addressing. “So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” (Jhn 16:22,23) Being the pathway unto the Father himself, it is in the name of Jesus we offer our prayers directed to the Father. Who are we told the Father is in relation to the son? Why, God is the God of God. This is explained quite well, all throughout Scripture: “You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Psm 45:7) Christ Jesus has a God! Though Jesus is ruler, he has a ruler. This text in Psalms clearly indicates a rank higher for the God of the first God. This indicates a superiority of one God over the other, where the Word is spoken of as worshiping his God, Jehovah. We know this, because Jesus used the name of his Father when teaching: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (Jhn 17:26) (ESV)"
It may be of some help for you to consider what “In the beginning” covers, in Genesis 1:1. There are two subjects mentioned which are nouns (products). The first is the creation/making, of the “heavens” and the “earth”. Which “heavens” (plural) is being considered here? The Hebrew word used is shamayim, which covers 1. Heaven, heavens, sky a, Visible heavens, sky ( from the surface of the earth to the visible planets and stars ) b. the abode of God In Gen 1:1 the abode of God in not part of the subjects. Why is that? Because “heavens” here is associated with “earth”. The “earth” ( ‘erets ) is about to be the main subject, viewed from heaven/outer space. The following verses deal with the “earth/‘erets”. The heavens mentioned in the following verses deal with the space around the earth. The sun ( light ), the moon ( Gen 1:14 ) So, the “beginning” in verse Gen 1:1 deals with the created “things” that are near, or on, the earth. It has nothing to do with “all things made”. John 1:1 deals with a different subject. It is about “the Word”. What does it say? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” ( John 1:1-2 NKJV ) The word, was = past tense first- and third-person singular. Middle English, from Old English, wæs, 1st & 3rd singular past indicative of wesan to be; akin to Old Norse vera to be, var was, Sanskrit vasati he lives, dwells. In other words, He already existed at this beginning. It is speaking of a past event beginning. That is why it can say “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” ( John 1:3 NJKV ) If Jesus (the word) was "God", how or why would it state that the word was with God ? "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." ( 1 Co 8 :5-6 NKJV )
There was, and probably still is an exclamation, used by law enforcement. "Stop! In the name of the law!" The name and law are not a name, but the representation of the Law. This could help explain the use of capital letters in the English language. It can sometimes represent the power of a word. "In the name of god, God, GOD!"
This is a good point... And, a good idea... This is the one chapter I knew I would need to take my time with. Hey, would you be interested in reading my manuscript before I send it off to an editor? I would be willing to add a thanks in the final work to you. Our even better, maybe you'd be interested in writing the forward. I know your concern about anonymity, and of course that would be completely up to you. But, if your interested, I know you would have some useful suggestions for where I might add or remove content. Is is kinda of job though, to read a whole book and offer commentary, and I wouldn't mind someone declining. I'm not sure I could offer my time in such away...lol We're all busy...
I'm not sure if you caught this post, it kinda got buried in our conversation, and was curious what you thought. #20 "Hey brother, I was just thinking, and I believe I have proof my assumption is correct! If you add the first two words of verse four to the end of verse three, "en autō", then that literally translates "through him" or, "In him, "by him." Verse four shouldn't read, "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." It should read, "Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind." The first two words of verse four should be at the end of verse three; because, verse three is talking about creation through him! That's it... AJ" This appears to me the proof translations end verse three in the improper place. When in fact the first two words of verse four should be the ending of verse three...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God. Through him all things were created, and without him not even one thing came into being, that were created through him. Life came to be, and that life was the light of mankind.” (AJ)
While searching for the information on the placement of your statement of John 1:3, “If you add the first two words of verse four to the end of verse three, “en autō”, then that literally translates “through him” or, “In him”, “by him.” It involves the Greek word “en” = in, by, with etc., which is a primary preposition denoting a fixed position in place, time, or state. There is no need to add or replace “en autos” to the end of verse three, because it already states “through him” in verse three. “All things came into being through him,” It then says, at the end of verse three, in Greek; “not one thing came into being”. This lead me to Genesis 1:1 again. When I checked the Hebrew for Genesis, I was surprised that Genesis is not a Hebrew word. It is Greek! ( autos en hos ginomai ) “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3 KJV ) ginomai = to become, to come into existence. Also translated as “to be made”. It is where we get the English word genetics, shortened to genes, and of course, Genesis. And, genetic code. Consider what Paul wrote to the Philippians. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” ( Php 2:5-11 NKJV ) The thoughts to be considered here is: If Jesus is also God, why does He have to exalt himself? How can the name of Jesus be “. . . the name which is above every name,” ? Is it above Jehovah God Almighty? How can a true believer not understand this, showing the differences between Christ the Son, and God the Father? With proper study, a person should understand that the teaching of a triune god comes from philosophy. This particular idea was introduced into the Christian faith, through Latin and philosophic teachings, by Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus; c. 155 – c. 240 AD ), around the middle of the second century A.D./C.E. Tertullian has been called “the father of Latin Christianity” and “the founder of Western theology.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
Let me think about this for a bit. Number one is "time". I'm in a major situation that needs to be resolved in the next two weeks. So, I'll have to concentrate on it. Then, how many pages is your book, and when do you plan on publishing it? And, my anonymity is secondary. Big Brother/The Beast, already has that information. What do you think those "robots" are doing, "Dave"?
Hey AJ, I just noticed that there is the "CONTACT US" at the bottom of the page "Email". Can I use that to communicate with you about the book?
Yes, verse three already states, "through him;" but, the problem is, most people believe the end of verse three denotes all things that were created, instead of those things through him alone. You see, Trinitarians use this verse to indicate the Word never had a beginning; because, if the verse ends with, "without him nothing was created that has been created," then that would include everything, including the Word. However, if you add the first two words of verse four to the end of verse three, then you have the proper meaning of verse three, stating "Without him nothing has been created, that has been created through him." Verse four goes on to speak of life as being already in place; because, verse three ends with their creation. "Life was, and the light of life was mankind." You see, verse four is speaking of life as already existing, rather then the moment they were created, which already took place in verse three. I explain this further below; but, if you start out verse four by saying "life was in him," not only does this not fit the context of verse four, it's out of place in the entire conversation. If you say in verse four life was in him, you are going back to a time before verse three, and this isn't the context of verse four, when it is talking of life that is. En in Greek is used eighteen times in the NT to denote through. As well, it carries the meanings, in, on, at, by, with. This seems clear to me, in the light of Rom 11:36, that each of these words are appropriate for the closing of verse three. I agree... You and I understand that Jesus is not the Father; but, my focus is in trying to write to the world, of which most are Trinitarians. So, this is the perspective I am attempting to speak from, in order for there not to be any way some theologian could successfully contradict the work. Even though you and I understand the nature of God and his God, you can't have verse three saying, "Through him all things were created, and without him nothing was created that has been created;" because, that would include the Word in a Trinitarian mind. Since we know the last occurrence of "that came into being" is referencing those things through him in the beginning of the verse, why can't the first two words of verse four end verse three? They fit the actual intent of the verse. Why would verse four be speaking about life that was in him before he started creating, and then go on to say that, "life is the light of mankind." Verse four is speaking about life that is, was, is already existing. That makes no sense to say In the Word was life, after verse three already discusses him creating life. Verse four doesn't end with life being created, so why include the idea of life being in the Word, before he even created mankind? To me, verse four fits much better starting with, "Life was, or "Life came about;" because, it's speaking of life after it was created in verse three. Then the verse goes on to speak of life that already exists. "Life came to be, and that life was the light of mankind.” Both past tense... Verse three speaks of what is being created, and verse four is speaking of life that was created. If verse four is saying life was in the Word, that has nothing to do with creating life, or life already existing. It doesn't fit the narrative anywhere in the text. Verse one already deals with the understanding that in the beginning the Word was. It doesn't make sense to be stating life was in him in verse four. The problem is: Trinitarians believe the beginning in verse one are those things created through him in verse three, as well as the Genesis account. Even though you and I know verse one's beginning isn't speaking about those things created through him, if you read the text as it is normally translated, then their assumptions can be drawn from its words. They claim Jesus beginning in Revelation 3:14 is simply a statement of his ruling, rather then any beginning. Then one could make the claim that Jesus is simply the beginning of Gods new creation: "And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." (Col 1:18) As verses 1:4 is written in most modern translations, other then the embarrassing version within the NWT, Trinitarians simply read "All things," which again means anything that was ever created. You and I know this; but, I've been studying the Trinitarian arguments, and their counters to all of these Scriptures. I can't approach this book as someone touting my own beliefs simply with common sense from the text. I must present actual proof that cannot be contradicted. There are a million debates on-line, from YouTube to forums, and I don't want a reader to be able to contradict anything. Don't get me wrong, I know there will be many who will do so anyways, for any number of reasons; but, I'm talking percentages. If I can knock out a large portion of their standard responses, that drive right to the heart of their arguments, then the odds are better that I will garner more interest from readers, then I would have from just spouting JW philosophy. In the light of the context in verse four, and the out of place contention that verse four is speaking about life being in the Word before creation, It seems pretty clear to me, that "through him" belongs in its proper place at the end of verse three. All love... I'll PM you a better email...
AJ said: "touting my own beliefs simply with common sense from the text." Yes, as Voltaire said, "Common sense isn't common anymore.!", and that was in the 18th century. I see where you are going with this. Yes, it now makes sense. That is part of the problem with ancient languages and modern translations. The ancients wrote "ideas" without using the sentence structures we use today. And, the majority of people that believe the trinity refuse to believe otherwise. There will likely be few that can be reached with the true message in the bible. There are far too many "false teachers" out there. I got the email, and hope you got my message.
I like this sentence, I think I'll use it; with your permission... Agreed, the problem with common sense today is that it contradicts peoples perceptions... The goal from the very beginning was that this work is to be a faithful narrative to all Christians, and I didn't want to just write another opinion oped. It must be based on Scripture fact of conceptual contexts. If it be by Jehovah's will, it will have the success he intends. If it reaches only one soul, then my efforts will have been worth it.
I hope you got my last e-mail message. Let me know. I seem to be having a problem with the e-mail program. It will not allow me to send a message. Plus . . another more serious problem with access to your site.
A friend asked me if I knew about Nestorius. I told him I had never heard the name. I looked up the information on the Britannica website. He (Nestorius) was another philosopher supposedly turned “Christian”. But, when reading his beliefs, you will find more philosophic rhetoric. Nestorius, (born 4th century ad, Germanicia, Syria Euphratensis, Asia Minor [now Maras, Turkey]—died c. 451, Panopolis, Egypt), early bishop of Constantinople whose views on the nature and person of Christ led to the calling of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and to Nestorianism, one of the major Christian heresies. A few small Nestorian churches still exist. (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius ) https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nestorians
Hey AJ, Here is proof that you are right about the sentence ending, and the start of the second sentence. Ancient Greek did not have spaces between written word. It was like reading: NOWISTHETIMEFORALLGOODMENTOCOMETOTHEAIDOFTHEIRCOUNTRY When studying the Bible, most people will only accept the King James Version, which uses 15th century English. They feel this is the original translation in English. This is a misconception because the original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. What is titled Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. What is titled New Testament was written in Greek. There are some words that were translated from Latin. One significant word is Lucifer. This is used in Isaiah, “How art thou fallen from heaven,O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! ( Isa 14:12 KJV ) The Hebrew word for star is heylel ( hay-lale’ ). A more appropriate translation is: “Oh shining star, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens! You weakening the nations, you are cut down to the ground.” ( Isa 14:12 LITV ) Something else to think about and consider with translations to English is this: In her new book “Greek To Me” Mary Morris says, “For Woolf, at the time she published her essay, in 1925, ‘not knowing Greek’ meant that it was impossible truly to know what the playwright meant, because we don’t know what the ancient language sounded like. ‘We can never hope to get the whole fling of the sentence in Greek as we do in English,’ she writes.” (Greek To Me by Mary Morris, page 20 ) We can’t possibly know the inflections or emphasis, which gives impressiveness or importance to something. Or, a special consideration of or stress or insistence on something.
You know, at this point, I see the original languages as they are, as the writers originally intended. As you said, "The ancients wrote in ideas, not our modern concepts of punctuation." It is the conceptual context in which we understand the original intent of the writer. It is the flow of concepts that define sentence structure. The problems creep in when we apply our own interpretation of punctuation. All that matters is the original intent... In the last two years, my studies haven't been about understanding the text, but understanding how they fit into the whole. This obviously is the goal of every scholar; but, until you reach a certain level of understanding, you are only accomplishing a personal view, by applying translation unto your own views. To desire fact without regard for personal understanding is the only way to move forward. Granted, I have had to readjust my paths along the way; but, the idea is to stay the course of fact. It is interesting in the fact that I see no difference in this study then that of the universe. From Einstein to Newton himself, the foremost of learned men have desire to find, and walk the paths of truth within the Holy Text... I just wish I could serve Him perfectly...
I'm with you on your journey along the road. It's full of rocks and other stumbling objects that we have a hard time avoiding. This is especially true when we are sinful. We miss that mark of perfection. Much love to you and your . . . . You know!