[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

<back to ignore mode>

The best one can do to avoid making a fool of himself.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by jerzy

So you also can not say who the God of 2Cor 5:18 is because you would have to admit to lying all the dirty way.

You also pretend not knowing what you are talking about although you were pointed to the facts dozens times.

Let God and your own masters answer your question once more:

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The reason our Bibles translate logos as word is that Jerome, a monk of the early fifth century, mistranslated it as verbum. Jerome’s Vulgate, as it is called, became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and the texts Jerome used have become the mainstay of contemporary liberal versions. The Latin term Verbum became Word in English.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=255.

The entire superstructure of the Vatican system is built on sinking sand . . . and not on the Rock of Ages....Every corrupt practice and doctrine can be traced back to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
In 382, Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the popular Latin translation of the Bible in use since at least 150 A.D.
Eventually, his perversion replaced the Old Latin Version.
It was called the Latin Vulgate and became the official version of the Vatican and the foundation of all their damnable heresies.
The Council of Trent condemns every other translation of the Bible except for the Latin Vulgate:

http://www.reformation.org/latin-vulgate-unmasked.html

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, 14 And the same word became fleshe, and dwelt among vs ( and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth.

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

Besides, didn't you hear about the lie of 325 which was declared unbiblical in 357 and made politically correct in 381?

What is the lie and who made it?

One would expect that after seing the evidence dozens of times you wouldn't be asking the same question because it doesn't do you any good.

We have been over this before. The ancient translations you give are wrong. The pronoun is "houtos" which is masculine and should be translated "Him."

It is used of John the Baptist in in verse 7. "He (houtos) came for a witness, to bear witness...."

It is also used of God in 1 John 5:20. "He (houtos) is the true God and eternal life."

Finally, you said last month that I should update myself on modern scholarship. Yet you keep citing ancient translations. Live by your own rule! The modern translations have it right.

Talking to you is like talking to a child because you force me to repeat myself.

You are a child Jerzy.

[Cross Reference]

<musing . . . . the deaf speaking to the deaf>

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote

We have been over this before. The ancient translations you give are wrong. The pronoun is "houtos" which is masculine and should be translated "Him."

The pronoun of whom and where, Wile?

It is used of John the Baptist in in verse 7. "He (houtos) came for a witness, to bear witness...."

So? Was Jesus wrong only 11 verses prior in Jn 20:17? What about Jn 17:3?

Does it warrant scrapping of hundreds of proof texts or rather you have something wrong?

It is also used of God in 1 John 5:20. "He (houtos) is the true God and eternal life."

Are you sure whom you are talking about?

Are you proving that God lied in hundreds of clear proof texts?

Finally, you said last month that I should update myself on modern scholarship. Yet you keep citing ancient translations. Live by your own rule! The modern translations have it right.

Really?

What about this one?

The Concordant Literal Version of 1926:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being."

Talking to you is like talking to a child because you force me to repeat myself.

Why don't you tell me what you did with hundreds of proof texts stating categorically contrary to your pronoun conclusion?

You are a child Jerzy.

Yes, I am a child of the Father the only one true God and Him alone I trust.

So what you did with hundreds of proof texts making your pronoun story a lie?

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

<musing . . . . the deaf speaking to the deaf>

Do you mean that you are deaf?

[jerzy]

Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote

Finally, you said last month that I should update myself on modern scholarship. Yet you keep citing ancient translations. Live by your own rule! The modern translations have it right.

Well, Wile.

The Bible translators don't usually care much about what the scholars tell them.

The three heavenly witnesses of 1Jn 5:7 might be a good example.

The Greek grammar has gone through few changes and nobody knows whether the latest Trinitarian understanding is the final one.

However, the contemporary scholars in your camp disagree with your old dated Greek grammar.

If you followed you wouldn't come up with few texts contradicting hundreds of undisputed of which meaning can not be changed.

Therefore, your argument is a dishonest turning of a table in the first place.

Secondly, you have never explained what you did with hundreds of those contrary texts stating beyond doubt that you are absolutely wrong.