Flee from idolatry

Originally posted by wotsup ↑

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.

Logic and commonsense then tells us, we ARE the image of WORD = Word.
You are word.

Hence 1:14 And Word/Humanto become and encamp in I = God. ............and as sure as s... Jesus says, I am in the Father = Drrrrrrrrrrrrr.
John 17:20-23 = One in Word = twofold.
I (Word) and the Father (Word) are one -> WORD.

John's opener (1:14) is NOT literally placing Jesus in 1:14, that is an event yet to happen, after he meets John the Baptist Mal 3:1.
Jesus only literally shows up in John when he meets John the Baptist.
No way is Jesus in 1:1 either, only as a plan within God, his inner logos, dead center of 1:1 and the beginning of 1:2 -> "This;"........

I do not give a hoot if the mainstream never accept this, I will NOT bend truth to keep the masses happy, never going to happen.
They WILL get it eventually, as they will have NO other option but to accept it, that you can be rest assured of.
We will also see who has the last laugh.
I'm not suggesting doom for everyone, just the above.

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.
"was" is not even an option to select from. (I don't give a rats what the bias masses have falsely added).
If one works on your said crazy approach, you would get errors all over the place, way more than we already have.
It's like a New Coppo has hit the scene?????????????????????????????? (Are you sure your OK?).

As I have already said, if John was translated correctly from the get go, there would not be this rubbish of John's opener.
It's got satan's finger prints all over it = check mate, gottcha suckers.

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 ??????????????????????????????

Expand

"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 !