• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That is His unique status, as being the eternal Logos of the father, who assumed human likeness and flesh as the Son!
What is Christ's uniquely divine status? Surprise us, answer a question with a statement.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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.​
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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.

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.​
Jesus was and is of the father, His eternal word!
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
You seem not to understand why translators make differing choices. Do they translate "para" as "provided by?" You bet. How about to give? Yes indeed. 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. Thus if the idea is something or someone sent by another, sent from is a valid choice.

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
 

JesusFan

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
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!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
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:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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. :)
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top