Understanding John 1:14

[The Archangel]

Do you never tire of misrepresenting my view? Here is what I said:

You see, or perhaps don't, translators evaluate the context and choose the word that best conveys the intended message from the pallet of historically available word meanings.​

And here is what you falsely claimed:

But what you clearly do not understand is that their translation choices are not based on what makes it more clear to them... It is what conveys the meaning of the text.​

Since several verses say Jesus was sent from the Father, the choice is contextually correct and avoids errant views.

Did I "claiming to know things about God when you've already stated before that you know nothing about Greek?" Nope, I cited a published source and you said taint so without a shred of posted support.

Last point. Archangel said, "You're too concerned with wanting to be right, but you haven't done the work to actually be right." His claim that the Greek "para" cannot be translated as "sent from" because of Greek grammar is total fiction. Published translations in English render "para" as "sent from!"

And you have done almost entirely what I predicted you would do.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Do you never tire of misrepresenting my view? Here is what I said:

You see, or perhaps don't, translators evaluate the context and choose the word that best conveys the intended message from the pallet of historically available word meanings.​

Yes, you said that. It is incorrect, which I pointed-out.

​

And here is what you falsely claimed:

But what you clearly do not understand is that their translation choices are not based on what makes it more clear to them... It is what conveys the meaning of the text.​

​

But, it would seem you didn't understand what I wrote. The translators do to have as wide a pallet of word meanings as you suppose; the whole lexicon is not at their disposal. What is at their disposal are words and/or phrases that are more dictated by grammatical considerations than lexical considerations.

Since several verses say Jesus was sent from the Father, the choice is contextually correct and avoids errant views.

No. Again, we have the difference of translation and exposition. Is Jesus "sent from" God? Clearly, the entirety of the passage is arguing that. But, in John 1:14, the phrase in question here (the one including παρα is referring not to Jesus, but to His glory. And, tragically, what you're missing here because of your insistence of "sent from" is that John is equating Jesus' glory with the glory of the Father, which is a clear statement of the divinity of Jesus. John isn't stating "Jesus was sent from God" in this clause; he's implying Jesus is God.

Did I "claiming to know things about God when you've already stated before that you know nothing about Greek?" Nope, I cited a published source and you said taint so without a shred of posted support.

You have misquoted me. Here is what I said:

claiming to know things about Greek when you've already stated before that you know nothing about Greek. (emphasis mine)

This must be said: I never said whether you know things about God. I trust that your faith and practice shows a real commitment to Him. I can't state things other than that because I don't know you personally. But, suffice it to say that I am not saying anything about you and your relationship with God.

Now... In citing a published source, you've done what I said is all you can do: Post other people's words. Because you don't know Greek, you can in no way evaluate what they say. You can't say, "He's right because...." or "he's wrong because...." You have no knowledge of Greek and so you cannot tell whether the source you posted is a nut case or not. You have no basis by which to evaluate the claims of the sources you post. And so you are--at best--a second-hander.

What you do is you post a source and then you post no support for the source's position.

Last point. Archangel said, "You're too concerned with wanting to be right, but you haven't done the work to actually be right." His claim that the Greek "para" cannot be translated as "sent from" because of Greek grammar is total fiction. Published translations in English render "para" as "sent from!"

So... You're claiming it's "total fiction." Why. Because your "source" says so? Or, is it because your source doesn't say it can't be (which would be the "argument from silence")? Which is it? You've claimed I'm wrong. But you are not able to argue your point beyond saying "Somebody else says...."

And so, you've done exactly what I predicted you'd do.

The Archangel

 

[37818]

Used by Lord Jesus is the NT

You had claimed the OT.

Jesus was in the OT as Son of man and as Angel of Yahweh!

 

[The Archangel]

5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by.

To put a further point on the issue of how παρα should be translated in John 1:14...

If you look at John 1:6 we see this: Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης The ESV translates it as: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

The passage is discussing John the Baptist. What we see is the phrase: "παρὰ θεοῦ." This is the preposition παρα plus the genitive. So, why is this properly translated as "Sent from God" and the παρὰ πατρός from John 1:14 not? Simple. In John 1:6 John uses the word ἀπεσταλμένος, which is the participial form of ἀποστέλλω, which is the verb "send."

So, in John 1:6 John includes the word "sent" separately from the παρα + genitive to convey the idea of the object being sent (in this case, John the Baptist). In John 1:14, however he only uses παρα + genitive, omitting "sent."

Now, as I've stated before, in the clause δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός from John 1:14 isn't discussing Jesus directly. The noun "δόξαν" (glory) is what is being discussed. Yes, it's talking about Jesus' glory. But the phrase isn't saying anything about Jesus being "sent from" God (other places in John 1 do that). What John is doing here is equating Jesus' glory with the glory of the Father Himself. This passage is a far deeper statement of Jesus' divinity (as someone who shares the glory of God) than Jesus simply being "sent from" God.

If the glory Jesus has is discussed as "sent from" God, then it was never Jesus' glory to begin with. So, Van's "translation" here denies Jesus' glory. Because... if Jesus' glory was sent from God (kind of like God's glory being "transferred to Moses" at Mt. Sinai), then Jesus is not divine. However, if Jesus' glory is "from" the Father (as in not "sent from") then the glory Jesus has is "as the glory of the Father Himself." So, Jesus shares the Father's glory, meaning that Jesus is divine--precisely because His glory and the Father's glory are the same. It is not because Jesus' glory is "sent from" God.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Consider Mark 14:43 where the Chief Priests had sent Judas. Here we find "para" translated as "sent from" or "sent by" in several published English translations, apparently according to this self declared expert, lacking the Greek grammar knowledge to know "para" cannot be translated as "sent from or sent by!!" The list includes the NET and Dr. Dan Wallace.

Just because the NET translates something a particular way ,doesn't mean Dan Wallace translates it that way.

Here's what you're missing:

Here's the passage in Greek: Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

παρα + genitive is here (in bold), and it is translated by the ESV as "from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. The key here, though, isn't παρα, it's παραγίνομαι (Italics and underline above), which means "came."

Here's the full ESV translation (and I've kept the same bold, Italic, underline emphases for clarity): And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. (ESV)

The sentence here is "Judas came." From where did he come? "From the chief priests..... " "From" here is the most basic translation. Can "sent" be implied here? Yes, it can. Why? Because Judas came from somewhere. But the "sent" implied here comes from the verb "came," which here is taken as a passive." It is not because of the meaning of παρα itself.

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

Yet another subject change question from a Calvinist set on derailing discussion of John 1:14

CALVINISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

 

[Van]

And you have done almost entirely what I predicted you would do.

The Archangel

Yet another troll-like response offering nothing.

 

[Van]

Yes, you said that. It is incorrect, which I pointed-out.

SNIP​

Here he doubles down on obfuscation, yet another troll-like denial of truth

 

[Van]

Just because the NET translates something a particular way ,doesn't mean Dan Wallace translates it that way.

Here's what you're missing:

Here's the passage in Greek: Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

παρα + genitive is here (in bold), and it is translated by the ESV as "from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. The key here, though, isn't παρα, it's παραγίνομαι (Italics and underline above), which means "came."

Here's the full ESV translation (and I've kept the same bold, Italic, underline emphases for clarity): And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. (ESV)

The sentence here is "Judas came." From where did he come? "From the chief priests..... " "From" here is the most basic translation. Can "sent" be implied here? Yes, it can. Why? Because Judas came from somewhere. But the "sent" implied here comes from the verb "came," which here is taken as a passive." It is not because of the meaning of παρα itself.

The Archangel

Good grief, para can be translated as sent from or sent by. You claimed Greek grammar precluded it, not context. Your claim was false and misleading.

 

[Van]

CALVINISTS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

yet another troll-like response from a Calvinist obfuscator.

 

[Van]

John 1:14 (interpretative translation)
And Logos (the Second Person of the Trinity) became human (God incarnate), and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory (glory as the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep) as the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1) Did anyone claim Logos is not the Second Person of the Trinity?
2) Did anyone claim became flesh does not mean became 100% human?
3) Did anyone claim the glory of Jesus is not as "the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Christ, Messiah and Savior, the image of God, and as the Good Shepherd, caring for and nurturing His sheep?
4) Yes some claimed being "monogenes" did not mean being "uniquely divine as God incarnate. But they were wrong.
5) Yes, one self proclaimed Greek grammar expert indicated the Greek preposition "para" could not be translated as "sent from!" But he was wrong according to several published translations which render "para" as sent from or sent by

Does anyone care to indicate what alternate or additional insights they have gleamed from study of John1:14?

 

[The Archangel]

Good grief, para can be translated as sent from or sent by. You claimed Greek grammar precluded it, not context. Your claim was false and misleading.

Nope. And talk about "not dealing with" and "obfuscating." It's nice how you completely ignored the substance of my post. Of course, you're free to do so. The problem is that you frequently make the accusation against others while feeling the freedom to do so yourself. Again, this is hypocrisy on your part.

The Archangel

 

[JesusFan]

Now this poster claims Jesus is not eternal!!! Just another banal effort at obfuscation.

His humanity was born, but was neutrally God!

 

[Van]

Nope. And talk about "not dealing with" and "obfuscating." It's nice how you completely ignored the substance of my post. Of course, you're free to do so. The problem is that you frequently make the accusation against others while feeling the freedom to do so yourself. Again, this is hypocrisy on your part.

The Archangel

Substance! Your substance was subterfuge First you implied some mysterious requirement of Greek grammar precluded translating para as sent from. Now you point to context that actually has no bearing on the intended meaning of para. Give me a break.... More than a dozen published translations including the NLT, the NET and the NIV all translate para as sent from or sent by. Your claim was false and misleading.

 

[Van]

His humanity was born, but was neutrally God!

Yes Jesus was physically born. Not at issue. The Logos existed eternally and therefore was never created. However, as Logos, He fulfills God's purpose, and therefore is termed "Son" as one who acts for and obeys another. Do you deny that historical word meaning for "son?" Are you that unstudied?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes Jesus was physically born. Not at issue. The Logos existed eternally and therefore was never created. However, as Logos, He fulfills God's purpose, and therefore is termed "Son" as one who acts for and obeys another. Do you deny that historical word meaning for "son?" Are you that unstudied?

He became the Son when he was born as a Human being, as before that time was eternal logos of the father on heaven!

 

[Van]

He became the Son when he was born as a Human being, as before that time was eternal logos of the father on heaven!

Yet again you seem unable or unwilling to accept that son sometimes means something other than biological offspring. So sad.

 

[The Archangel]

Substance! Your substance was subterfuge First you implied some mysterious requirement of Greek grammar precluded translating para as sent from. Now you point to context that actually has no bearing on the intended meaning of para. Give me a break.... More than a dozen published translations including the NLT, the NET and the NIV all translate para as sent from or sent by. Your claim was false and misleading.

Nope.

I gave you plenty of substance. You ignored it all. To be fair, it’s probably all you could do since you don’t know Greek. There was no way for you to evaluate my arguments other than to claim to be right in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Nope.

I gave you plenty of substance. You ignored it all. To be fair, it’s probably all you could do since you don’t know Greek. There was no way for you to evaluate my arguments other than to claim to be right in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

The Archangel

First this expert says I am wrong because of his knowledge of Greek grammar. Then, when exposed as presenting view not held by published translators, he says the context will not allow it. But the context he selected had no bearing on the issue. His plenty of substance was all subterfuge.

Note how he claims more than a dozen published English translations do not know enough Greek to know para cannot be translated as sent from or sent by. Such an expert...

 

[The Archangel]

First this expert says I am wrong because of his knowledge of Greek grammar. Then, when exposed as presenting view not held by published translators, he says the context will not allow it. But the context he selected had no bearing on the issue. His plenty of substance was all subterfuge.

Note how he claims more than a dozen published English translations do not know enough Greek to know para cannot be translated as sent from or sent by. Such an expert...

I never claimed the translators were wrong. You've invented this red herring in order to mask your ignorance of Greek. I simply claimed you were wrong as it pertains to John 1:14. I pointed out why in certain cases "sent from" could work. But John 1:14 is not one of those cases. Grammar is contextual too. You've proven, though, that you have no basis by which to evaluate why any translator would translate certain words certain ways based on the grammar of a passage. You've proven that you have no basis by which to evaluate my, or anyone else's, argument when it comes to Greek. You've proven that you "know no Greek," but you've said that about yourself many times in the past.

What you're doing in consulting a lexicon, without being able to work the grammar of a passage, is a form of the "lexical fallacy." Just because "sent from" can be a valid translation/understanding in one case does not mean it can be a valid translation/understanding in another. The grammar of a given passage works to dictate the understanding of the given words. Just as the Mark 14:43 can be translated as "sent from" because of the use of the participial form of the verb παραγίνομαι, the John 1:14 cannot be translated as "sent from" because παρα is most closely related to the noun "glory."

Now, I'm sure you'll just resort to repeating yourself, writing things more loudly, etc., proving yet again that you are unable to converse with the Greek.

The Archangel