Flee from idolatry

Originally posted by Copperbod: ↑

"You totally miss the ONE KEY message of the opener of John and what God himself introduces himself as and that is WORD.
He continues to interchange himself and his word as One, pretty much for the entire prologue.
Trouble is, you lot see word or logos and immediately your head goes to expressed words mode = you foolish children, time to wake up, Lights on and use the head you were given."

Try again because you must have mistaken me for someone else.
Also I did say I couldn't be of any help with John 14. Perhaps I should have made clearer that the "normal" translation of both John 1.1 and John 14 are the reason you will never change anyone's mind about it. Not necessarily an endorsement from me.

When you try to explain your interpretation using fractured semi English and fiddling with individual Greek words, then as you have seen over and over, even those who continue to exchange with you throw their hands up and give up.
If you really don't give a hoot why waste your energy over and over ?

"Goodness me, what in the hec are you having trouble with, re I exist or I am, what's so hard about just using one of them as they are, the first defined options, is what you SHOULD be using."

No, that's another self invented wotsup rule. The option that best reflects the intended meaning is always the first and best choice.

I am sorry wotsup but you have misunderstood Strong's brief so called definition where he gave as an example "I am" and "I exist" which can be used when related to a person.

There is no "I" in "eimi" which basically means "exist" or "to be". That's why there are so many possible ways to use in a sentence.
Why do you think the famous Jesus "Before Abraham was I am". uses two words "egō eimi".

"Where Jesus is referenced as saying -> before Abraham "I am" -> why are you not translating that as "was", or do you think it's OK to chop and change as You see fit ?????????????????????????????? "

It could easily and more understandably be translated as "I was".
The John authors used "I am" to cash in on the OT words Yehowah used and avoid using "was" twice in the same sentence. Writers do that all the time.

The so called "chopping and changing" is exactly as a context sensitive translation is meant to be.
It is only your cognitive inflexibility and lack of translation knowledge that makes it bother you so much.

I won't comment on your separate John post because there really is no point.
You could well be the only person ever to discover it's real meaning.
In the spirit of nothing's impossible even though lots of things are highly improbable !

Expand

"I am sorry wotsup but you have misunderstood Strong's brief so called definition where he gave as an example "I am" and "I exist" which can be used when related to a person."

It wasn't just brief example, but a definition.
And in the context of John, it IS most definitely speaking of a person, or being = God who IS deemed as WORD and naturally, we are deemed as Words as well = image of, as well as being our own Alpha Omega's = A to Z as well.

Hence -> "~~No, that's another self invented wotsup rule~~. The option that best reflects the intended meaning is always the first and best choice." = God I AM WORD and you silly little clowns are Words as well, you just don't know it YET.
--------------
Yes, I get what you are saying in that effectively, the cow will jump over the moon, before the mainstream will ever accept John's truth.

Anyway and all jokes aside, the message appears to be loud and clear now, let it go as it is not going to change atm, no one will be able to see it, regardless as to how simple it may appear, which it is.
Sit tight and just wait.........................................................?

PS. Don't right off your last comments, theme of, but add some numbers, few (and that is Not a look at me, type comment).