Featured Understanding John 1:14

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

The Archangel

 

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

​

​

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.

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.

You have misquoted me. Here is what I said:

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.

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

 

You had claimed the OT.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

His humanity was born, but was neutrally God!

 

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

 

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

 

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