Flee from idolatry

Originally posted by wotsup ↑

I'm curious, before you effectively shout your mouth off and recommend something, do you actually check to SEE if you have your facts right?
Re Matt 2:9 for example, it did NOT need to be translated as "was", if you take the truth of the words either side of it etc.
Just because it might be translated like this or that elsewhere in the Bible, that does Not make it right, that's just pack mentality, following the sheep.

'
Wotsup, of course I can't refute what you "put up". Neither could anyone else.

You have invented your own interpretations and seem now convinced they are the only truth
"
"
In your mind it may have "
perfect alignment and flow
", but for anybody else it is barely comprehensible."
"
Whatever John 1:1 means it is NOT God introducing Himself and telling us He is Word in 3 different flavours. It is the narrator speaking.
"

Changing your mind on the 3 flavors area now are we?
It's either 3 flavors of God or 3 of the Word, make you choice, but they mean the same, as God IS WORD.
Whoever one wants to claim the Word is, They are being introduced as WORD - "and God was the Word" = And God was Word if you want this corrupted "was" in there.

In beginning I am the Word and the Word I am
to (towards)
the God and God I am the Word (If you do your home work "I was" the Word can be used, so stick that one LOL).

This; I am in beginning to the God.
All things through Self came into being, and without Self came into being not even one thing that came into being. (Isa 44L24, Psa 33:6,9).
In Self life was (exist) and that life was (exist) the light of men.
1:9 I am(God) the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world. (God is light, Father of).
In the world I am and the world through Self came into being and the world Self not knew.
To the one's own to become, and the one's own received not Self.
How many however received Self, to give self power to act a child of God, to come into being.

So come on, man up and tell us all WHY the above is incomprehensible, don't forget, it's the Greek lingo, not mine.
While at it, show us WHY none of the above can't, or doesn't align with the Bible, with perfection.
While at it, explain to all that, even though God personally is shown the be the speaker in OT passages, that there is No way this can happen or be so in John or the NT, as that is what you appear to be suggesting.
I would say, it's more like your conditioning, that's telling you such rubbish.

REPEAT - Mal 3:1 - Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith Yehowah of hosts.

Are YOU getting with the Theme?????????????
God introduces himself, from outside of time as we know it, so to speak, with a plan for a Jesus to be, man and Gens creation, wrapped up in 1:1,2 and this we know now from other Bible passages.

1:14 and Word/Human to become and encamp in I = God, no if but maybe's, all part of the Spirit of Truth, Advocate subjects etc.

Your all deemed as a pack of Words you clowns, get with it and get to know Jesus's name Rev 19:13, Rev 14, Son and Father names.

Expand

"Re Matt 2:9 for example, it did NOT need to be translated as "was", if you take the truth of the words either side of it etc.
Just because it might be translated like this or that elsewhere in the Bible, that does Not make it right, that's just pack mentality, following the sheep."

What I said was ..
"BTW there are many other NT verses that use use ἦν and also translate it as "was". eg Matt 2:9, Matt 3:4 etc"

Which is true, present and correct and meant as an example.

Let's try to stick to the subject of how we can improve your understanding of translation and knowledge of Koine Greek.
Throwing in red herrings and rehashing your current versions doesn't add anything.

So, to quote from my post ..

"Your John 1:1 translation using "I am" or "I exist" for the original Greek word ἦν as per the Interlinear is WRONG in this passage.
It is not even the same form as the Strong's dictionary one εἰμί you insist on using and have built this inaccurate version on."

What do you think that simple fact means ?
Especially since there is clearly no "I" in ἦν (or εἰμί where it is only an added option in some parsings.)

So, let's get to the bottom of this particular issue.

Then maybe we can look at why "with" was used rather than "to, towards" or one of the other myriad forms.
What does (God's) Word to, towards God mean ?

"So come on, man up and tell us all WHY the above is incomprehensible, don't forget, it's the Greek lingo, not mine."

Wotsup, can't you see how this idea that "it's the Greek lingo," is wrong and misleading you.
It's NOT Greek but your attempt to produce something in wotsupian English by misunderstanding how complicated and difficult Greek to English translation can be.

Please no more red herrings or rehashing your current beliefs, let's just concentrate on what's needed to improve your Greek translations.

.