-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Understanding John 1:14
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
Yet another subject change question from a Calvinist set on derailing discussion of John 1:14
Yet another off topic question to change the subject from John 1:14. Note none of these derailers post their own understanding of the verse.
What is Christ's uniquely divine status? Surprise us, answer a question with a statement.
Returning to topic:
The next phrase (of the only Son from the Father) contains several controversial words which I believe must be dealt with collectively.
Of the only Son is the NASB translation of monogenes, and could better be translated as uniquely divine Son.
From (Greek para) might better be translated as "sent from" indicating God incarnate was sent by the Father. Putting the phrase together we get, "the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father.
The next phrase (of the only Son from the Father) contains several controversial words which I believe must be dealt with collectively.
Of the only Son is the NASB translation of monogenes, and could better be translated as uniquely divine Son.
From (Greek para) might better be translated as "sent from" indicating God incarnate was sent by the Father. Putting the phrase together we get, "the uniquely divine Son sent from the Father.
John 1:14 (NASB)
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
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.
Grace is not a substance like gravy, to be ladled upon a person, but a attribute of love given to those chosen by the giver not because of any meritorious attribute of the receiver, but according to the gracious choice of the giver. Often the bestowal of divine favor or blessing as an unmerited gift.
Truth refers to what has fidelity to the original, thus because Christ is the perfect image of God, He is the Truth. Thus John 1:14 teaches Jesus as God incarnate's mission was to bestow God's indescribable gift and provide revelation of that gift.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
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.
Grace is not a substance like gravy, to be ladled upon a person, but a attribute of love given to those chosen by the giver not because of any meritorious attribute of the receiver, but according to the gracious choice of the giver. Often the bestowal of divine favor or blessing as an unmerited gift.
Truth refers to what has fidelity to the original, thus because Christ is the perfect image of God, He is the Truth. Thus John 1:14 teaches Jesus as God incarnate's mission was to bestow God's indescribable gift and provide revelation of that gift.
Jesus, who is God, applied that term to Himself
37818
Well-Known Member
Since Jesus is God Incarnated, would not he be authorized to apply Son of man as a divine term for Himself?
37818
Well-Known Member
More non-germane obfuscation. What is Christ's uniquely divine status? Surprise us, answer a question with a statement.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I understand--quite clearly--why translators make differing choices. The best translations are done by committees for a reason. In certain cases prepositions like παρα can carry different nuance. 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.
In the passage you're discussing, the words, phrases, and clauses surrounding παρα matter. They influence the translation. "Sent from" doesn't work for reasons already stated... because in this text "from" is related to "glory" and arguing that Jesus was "sent from God" is absurd to the text. You could argue that glory was "sent from God" but that isn't what you're arguing. But, of course, you don't get that because--by your own prior admission and ongoing demonstration(s)--you don't know Greek.
Because you only have a lexicon and a parsing tool, you're simply out of your league. That's nothing for you to be embarrassed about. What there is for you to be embarrassed about is your ongoing demonstration of ignorance by claiming to know things about Greek when you've already stated before that you know nothing about Greek. You're too concerned with wanting to be right, but you haven't done the work to actually be right.
Now, I'm sure this will produce one of those "taint so" pocket-veto kind of posts. But, it will be noted that you can't tell me why I'm wrong. You can only quote what other people might say about this or that. Or you might open a lexicon and see all the possible translations of a certain word, be it a verb, participle, or preposition. But, the grammar escapes you... and so you have no idea which translation would be appropriate for which grammatical construction and which would violate the grammar... and so you cannot tell me why I'm wrong. And because the grammar governs more of the usage than the lexical definition, the nuance is a mystery which is lost to you, and therefore you are continually wrong.
The Archangel
Used by Lord Jesus is the NT
van will now go back to using Strongs glosses as "proof" that he is able to better translate the Greek into English then those involved on the Nas and Esv teams!
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!"
Last edited:
Now this poster claims Jesus is not eternal!!! Just another banal effort at obfuscation.
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. 
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.
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.
- Status