Featured Significance of Revelation’s Blessings

It is not unusual for the Lord to use female imagery.
He called Israel at times a harlot, and an adulteress.
And just as she was an adulterous she was also depicted as one who was in a covenantal marriage relationship that Jehovah would treat as a wife.
At other times she would be "the daughter of Jerusalem."
In the NT believers are collectively called the "bride of Christ," and the "church" is often referred to in the female gender, as "she."

Pro 8:15-23
15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.
19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.
20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:
21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Pro 8:35-36
35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
--Life, and life eternal is found only through Jesus Christ. Christ is our Creator. This describes him, not only as Creator, but from being from everlasting, that is from eternity. No other person fits this but Christ.

The word, logos is a masculine noun.

Let's take a look at verse four and see if it answers your question:

John 1:4 εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

ev autw zoe he = in him was life. The verb is at the end of the sentence.

zoe, or life, is a feminine noun, and thus demands a feminine verb (he or hay). But "in him" (en autw) has been consistent with its antecedents all the way through the text and can only be translated in the masculine.

In the second half of the sentence "to phos" the light, is a neuter noun. And "man" used in its generic form to mean humanity or mankind is "anthropos" and is a masculine noun.

 

Greetings again DHK,

I appreciate your response and help with tenses in John 1.

But I cannot find a reference where Jesus is presented as a female. He is the King, the Bridegroom, the Shepherd.

Wisdom fits all the above. Jesus during his ministry was the fulness of the wisdom of God, but Luke tells us that to arrive at this he grew in wisdom from a child.

God the Father is the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
Psalm 8:1 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
Matthew 11:25 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth ,
Matthew 11:25 is a quotation or interpretation of Psalm 8:1,3. The “Yahweh” of Psalm 8:1 is the “Father” of Matthew 11:25.

Does the fact that the word “logos” is masculine then prove that “logos” here is a person, or do most translations render this as “him” because of their Trinitarian view that the “Word” here is a person, the pre-existent Jesus, or God the Son? In English a word is an "it", unless personification is being used.

I was interested to note how Tyndale translated these verses. Is he wrong?
John 1:1-4 (Tyndale): 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 5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

I never suggest Christ was a female. To say that I did is a false allegation, and suggest that Christ is, is blasphemous. What I said is that the Bible uses metaphors, such as: "I am the door." The word "door" is a feminine noun. That does, in no way, reflect on the gender of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a metaphor. If you wish to show your ignorance and I think deliberately so, in the subject of figures of speech, that is your prerogative. I think you know very well that metaphors and allegories do not determine the gender of a person.

What does it say in John 1?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--John sets forth the premise that the Word is God.
It is interesting to note that the J.W.'s add the indefinite article "a" in the last clause making the Word is "a god." But then they are stuck with the belief in polytheism--belief in a greater God (Jehovah) and a lesser God (Christ).

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--The Word (Christ) was made flesh.
God was the Word. He was the one that was made flesh.
John says: He dwelt among us and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
--The only person that can be defined as "full of grace and truth" is God himself, who in this case is Christ--God come in the flesh--the Word.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
--No man has seen God at any time.
John is quoting a truth from the OT. If one should see God he should die. It is impossible to see God and live. But John sees God. For the God he sees is Christ, the One who has come in the flesh. He has declared the Father. How does he do that. He is God, the second person of the triune Godhead.

You say you use the KJV in your meetings.
How can any person, using the KJV, disbelieve the trinity when it is so clearly stated here:
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

All throughout his ministry Christ claimed deity.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
--His claim is not simply unity in purpose, but unity in essence, and the Jews knew exactly what he meant. That is why they began to stone him.

The very next verse says:
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
--Immediately they begin to stone him after he makes that statement, that, "I and my Father are one."

The answer of Jesus:
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

Was it for his good works or miracles that they stoned him?

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
--They knew exactly what he meant. The words of verse 30 meant that His claim was a claim to deity. Jesus was saying that He was God, and indeed he was, and that was the reason he was being stoned by the Jews.
This claim runs through his entire ministry. It is what angered the Jews. And for that reason he was crucified.

 

Greetings again DHK and Protestant,

Perhaps I am showing my ignorance on the subject of figures of speech. What I was trying to say is that I believe that the Woman is a personification of the Wisdom of God the Father.

I do not believe that the Word in John 1:1 is the pre-existent Jesus or God the Son.

We use the KJV for our reading of the Scripture before an exhortation, lecture, seminar and Bible Class. We also refer to other translations to help when needed. Nearly all other translations reject 1 John 5:7 as spurious. I discussed this at length with you a year ago in the “Trinity” thread.

I discussed this at length a year ago in the “Trinity” thread.

As this is in support of DHK’s comments above, I can accept in part that God was in Christ, but not in the sense that you maintain.

I was using Tyndale’s translation to show that he translated John 1:3-4 as “it” rather than the KJV “him” and I believe this is a correct translation. I was not commenting on his theology. I also understand that some other 16th Century translations have “it” rather than “him”, but I do not have a copy of these.

There is a danger in using syllogisms. Please refer to the article in Wiki. Here is one example:
Suffering is the result of sin.
Job is suffering greatly.
Therefore Job is a great sinner.

I have considered at length the “I am” passages and Exodus 3:14 “I will be that I will be” in the “Trinity” thread a year ago and I do not want to cut and paste. On Page 19 Post #185 I gave an approximate summary of my contribution to the “Trinity” thread, and I will add it here, as I do not want to repeat this matter.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Protestant (Part 1 of 2),

I appreciate your latest response. I apologise for the length of these post, but it also catches up on some earlier material that I failed to answer.

It is still very unusual to be so far off course. It sadly reminds me of the loss of four friends some years ago in a small plane flight.

I did not know the theology of Tyndale and perhaps I was hoping he was a closet believer in the One God, the Father and Jesus as the Son of God. I had heard he may have rejected the immortality of the soul, but I would have to research this to verify. My impression with Tyndale and others of the 16th Century, even possibly the Geneva Bible steeped as they were in Calvinism, they were trying to be faithful to the original as far as they understood it. The spirit of the Reformation was to cast off tradition not soundly based upon the Word, and allow the Word to speak and lead the way. They were against the RCC and some of its teachings and practices, more than most Protestants are today.

The “it” is quite valid if The Word is a personification of the Wisdom, the thought and the reason behind the spoken word. DHK mentioned how some words in other languages have a male or female tense. He gave the example of the word “door” as female. In Greek if you asked someone to “Shut the door”, the response could be “She is shut”. But in an English translation we would say “It is shut” and if we said “She is shut” this would sound peculiar and we would be in error or be giving a too literal translation. I believe Tyndale was correct in using “it” for The Word even if he accepted the Trinity. Possibly he did not see the need to squeeze the Trinity into John 1:1.

I agree that my syllogism was faulty, but if you have studied the Book of Job what I stated seems to be the basis of his three friend’s arguments. I only gave it as an example that A=B B=C does not always prove C=A.

I have also added part of your previous post. The second quotation above is an abbreviation. I find this confusing, as I cannot accept the idea that next to God the Father there was a separate Divine Being called The Word, God the Son, or the pre-existent Jesus. And then this Divine Being somehow abandoned all His divine attributes to become a babe in the womb of Mary and after birth a babe in her arms. And yet you seem to claim that this babe is still fully God the Son. Does he have the mind of a babe or the mind of God fully developed when he was in the arms of Mary. In your estimation was the babe in the arms of Mary “full of grace and truth”? If so, how is it that Luke says that the child grew in wisdom? When did Jesus regain “full of grace and truth”? Is this then “a continuity of the Word”? Yes, I believe in the continuity of The Word, and possibly I could explain the following better.
1. I equate The Word with God the Father, as a part of Him, revealing his character, thought, reason and plan. I do not equate The Word with a pre-existent Jesus. In other words there was only one God, one person, one being. Only one being in John 1:1 and one personification of a quality of God the Father.
2. This Word became focused in producing Jesus. The Word was made flesh. Here is a continuity of The Word, but what was produced was a babe, a babe of flesh, who when grown and matured revealed all the attributes of the Word. He was full of grace and truth. In another sense Jesus is now The Word, because God the Father now speaks in and through His Son. When God speaks a word, we can call this the Word of God, but this does not mean that God’s ability to speak another word is in any way limited. He still has within Him the Logos, the Word ready to be spoken.
3. There is no mention that the Pre-existent Word is God the Son or a pre-existent Jesus. This is your starting premise even though you do not state this. Your logic is in absolutes of A, B, C, but there is more detail and a lot of Scripture that goes into each term to gain the correct understanding.

Perhaps what you quoted from some Christadelphian literature may help. Perhaps a fuller context of the statement may help, but looking at what you gave.

I can agree with this comment in a qualified sense by saying that to understand the birth of person of Jesus correctly we must weigh up the record of John with Matthew and Luke. If our interpretation of John 1 disagrees with the clear, simple teaching of Matthew’s and Luke’s record of the conception, birth, education and person of Jesus then our understanding of John 1 is incorrect. We are given three records so that we can understand the full picture. I claim that you view is inconsistent with the record given by Matthew and Luke. Please consider Matthew 1:18-23 including “God with us”. Also Luke 1:35 including “the Son of God”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Greetings again Protestant (Part 2 of 2),

On another part of an earlier thread, I was disappointed that you looked at John 8:58 without first responding to the other “I am” passage that I quoted in the same context as John 8:58.
John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
What is remarkable with this passage is that we have exactly the same expression as John 8:58, but here he is not claiming Divinity, but speaking of his humanity, weakness and dependence on His Father. He is claiming to be a man, not God. And yet you suggest that in John 8:58 he is claiming Divinity. In one instance if I may use the analogy, he is a nervous, fumbling, quiet, withdrawing Clark Kent wearing glasses, and the next minute he is claiming to be Superman, a caped-crusader flying to the rescue. This dichotomy seems to be the same as your claim that the babe in the arms of Mary was somehow the continuity of The Word, God the Son, who by definition is immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful.

Nevertheless I was interested in your quotation of the LXX and your claim that John 8:58 is a quotation of Exodus 3:14. In the “Trinity” thread I have attempted to show the reason why I accept the future tense of ehyeh, “I will be”. I am not skilled sufficiently to discuss the Greek of the LXX and NT passages. I have a copy of a discussion that a skilled linguist had with some who were claiming much the same as you regarding the link between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. It is part of a larger discussion with 120 Posts on another forum about 10 years ago. This writer was claiming in his thread that the meaning of the Yahweh name is the future “I will be”. Here is a portion of his statement:

In other words he does not see any real connection between the LXX of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, as the LXX comes up with “the BEING” rather than “I AM” in the second part of the verse, and in effect loses the original meaning of the words in Hebrew. In his thread he faced fairly intense opposition to his view of “I will be”, but even a Trinitarian Hebrew scholar eventually conceded that Exodus 3:14 is correctly translated as “I will be”. My personal reflection is to question why the LXX seems to be a poor or wrong translation of Exodus 3:14. I came up with a number of possibilities.
1. It is simply a poor translation, as is some other portions of the LXX.
2. They did not understand the true import of the Divine Name “I will be”.
3. They did not want to have these Gentiles taking the Name in vain and so they gave a simplistic translation to avoid this possibility of blasphemy.

In your opening Post you gave your support to the Historicist view and rejected the Preterist and Futurist view. You later mentioned John Thomas who at first was associated with the Campbellites or Disciples of Christ. John Thomas gave his first address at short notice at the insistence of Alexander Campbell, and he gave it on Daniel 2. This prophecy is possibly the best foundation to understand the Historicist view, with its successive metals representing a timeline of successive kingdoms of men. From this and other Bible studies he turned away from heaven going at death and believed in the Kingdom of God on earth as for example Isaiah 2:1-4, Daniel 2:44. Towards the end of his life his major writing was the 3-volume Eureka – An Exposition of the Apocalypse (1862 Volume 1) where his understanding of the Historicist view is fully developed.

Our local fellowship considers Russia’s move into Crimea as the first step towards it assuming the role of the military wing of the Eastern Roman Empire. We anticipate Russia will eventually move into Turkey and become the new King of the North, before sweeping down into the Middle East for the Battle of Armageddon Daniel 2, Daniel 11:40-45, Ezekiel 38, Zechariah 14, Revelation 16:12-16.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

The Greek is very specific in regards to gender, with every noun having a specific gender of either masculine, feminine or neuter.
But English is not always so. Many of our nouns have no specific gender. However many nouns that we would usually think of neutral (your example of door) actually have gender.
The word "ship," for example. "She" set sail yesterday. The word is typically feminine.

How do you refer to your own nation:

She is addressed in the feminine gender, even though HER citizens are of both genders.

The English Bible cannot properly translate door into a feminine gender.
Sometimes the Word of God translates the pronoun for the Holy Spirit in the neuter gender: "The Holy Spirit 'itself'" but we know that He is the proper gender. The only reason "itself" was used is because it was an acceptable literal translation.

Translations are not inspired. Only the originals are inspired and we don't have them any more. But we do have the Word of God preserved in the Greek and Hebrew MSS.
In translations some meaning is always lost. I know the lessons of this well simply by being a foreign missionary and working with another language. Trying to get another person to say in another language the exact thing that you want to convey in English is almost impossible at times. English has some idioms and colloquialisms that are pretty much untranslatable. The same is true of most languages including Greek. Thus some meaning is always lost in a translation.

The Word is a person. The Word is in the masculine gender. The Word refers to Christ, also in the masculine gender. The only reason it may have been translated as "it" is it may not have sounded right to the English speaking ear. That is the only reason. It does have gender. It is masculine. We don't always assign gender to nouns, but, as demonstrated we sometimes do.

 

Greetings again DHK and Protestant,

I appreciate your responses. Perhaps it is time to move on, as we seem to be repeating much of what we have stated previously. I do not want to be a nuisance. I agree with the rest of your post DHK, but here in John 1:1 I believe that The Word is a personification and as such “it” in English is an acceptable translation as per Tyndale’s translation. It certainly fits my understanding of John 1.

No, during his ministry he was a man, the Son of God. Some of the attributes of God: He is immortal, supreme, cannot be tempted, omniscient, cannot be seen. Some of the attributes of Jesus: He was mortal, is subordinate to God in the past, now and in the future, was tempted, never omniscient, was seen and will be seen of men.

Yes he gave them an answer, and this answer is reinforced by three explanations. These three explanations are given immediately after they accused him of blasphemy.
John 10:30-38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
The answer comprises three explanations:
1. The evidence of the works that he showed them from the Father v32, v37-38. This showed his unity with God the Father.
2. The OT evidence that the judges were called “gods” or “elohim” because the Word of God came unto them. This shows that he also represented God, as did these judges. In the Trinity thread I gave more detail on the role of these judges and why they were called “Elohim”.
3. His claims that what he actually said in v30 is that he “said, I am the Son of God” v36. This shows that they misinterpreted his statement. When he said “my Father” he was claiming to be God’s Son.
The Trinitarian is making the same mistake concerning v30 as Jesus’ accusers. This third item shows that Jesus is here not claiming to be God, or God the Son, but the Son of God v36.

Also when speaking to the Apostles, Jesus uses the same language as John 10:30 in the following:
John 17:21-23 (KJV): 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Your limited thinking in English would lead you to think this way. You are not thinking in the language in which the NT was written in which is Greek. Unless you can do that you will be unable to understand what is being said. That is inexcusable. It is an excuse for ignorance.
Let me give you an example. Both my wife and I are acquainted with a number of different languages both from college and the mission field.

Here is a French example:
La maison est blanc. (The house is white.)
Il y a cinq chambre en elle. (It has five rooms in it.)
The French would think in their minds (It has five rooms in her.
But we don't think in terms with gender. In fact, living in a multi-cultural society, with immigrants from different countries constantly coming to our nation, I find that one of their greatest difficulties is with English pronouns.
--Often I will hear a sentence like this:
"The car; she went that way." They have problems with "a," "it" and "the." They are accustomed to having a gender attached to every noun. We don't.

Since "the word" (o logos) is masculine, there is no "it." You don't have that option. "IT" is not there in the Greek. It is "HE". The only reason it is translated "it" is to make sense or a better reading for the English sounding mind, but in a literal translation it is wrong.

Thus your argument is moot. It is an excuse for you to simply translate things your way. But that is not the way it is properly translated. That is not the way the Greek mind would think. And the Scriptures were written in Greek. Paul or John did not use the KJV.

Jesus is immortal, supreme, and right now you cannot see him, and yet he lives forevermore. He is no longer subordinate to the Father, but co-equal, is omniscient, and even displayed that omniscience on earth--for he knew what was in the hearts of men.

1 Timothy 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
--And you were saying?

No, he accepts the Jews correct assessment of him, and does not rebuke them for it. He, being a man, makes himself God. They were right. It was a claim of deity. He never said they were wrong.
Where you are wrong is the very fact that the term "son of God" does refer to his deity, whereas "son of man," refers to his humanity.

It is another claim to deity. The Lord sent him. Sent him from where? From heaven of course. He is not a created being. He is God. He came from the glories of heaven and was "incarnated" or put on flesh for our sake. Read again John chapter one.
No man has seen God at any time. But John said, "I have seen him."
Why? He is the Word, manifest in the flesh.

 

Greetings again DHK,

Neither did they use Tyndale’s translation. Your example allows my position as you are demanding a literal translation of the tense when in English “word” does not have a male tense. Despite your impatience with my limited English, it really comes down to whether you accept that The Word in John 1:1 is a person or a personification. I also read one explanation and the writer claimed that The Word in John 1:1 is a metaphor and this most probably is a better explanation of the figure of speech used. He likewise did not accept The Word in John 1:1 as a person. Yes my English is limited as I worked in a technical field and liked Physics and Mathematics. There is no mention in John 1:1 that God the Son, or Jesus pre-existed his conception and birth. Rather it is The Word that pre-existed. Here are some other instances where “the word” (logos) is used:
Acts 15:7 (KJV): And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV): In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Colossians 1:5 (KJV): For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

I believe 1 Timothy 6:14-16 speaks of Jesus revealing God the Father when Jesus returns from heaven. God the Father is the only one that “hath immortality”, in the sense it is and has always been part of his essential being. Jesus at his resurrection was given immortality. Jesus will be subordinate to God the Father at the end of the 1000 years 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. We differ on John 10:30-35.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

It is very simple. The Bible was inspired in Greek not in English.
John and Paul wrote in Greek not in English.
The Word (o logos) is masculine, not a neutral word or phrase.
You cannot have your way in this in spite of who said what.
Just because "it" may have been translated that way does not make the translation correct. It is a masculine word no matter how it is translated. Live with it.

 

Correction, the Bible "is given by inspiration of God"... which is in the present tense. The presence of the state-of-being-verb : "is", puts "given" in an ever present state of being.

* hint: read the verse tomorrow, and it will still say "is given".

 

Well, I wasn't quoting a verse (2Tim.3:16), I was just stating a fact.
But you are right; the verse states "is given by inspiration of God."