Chat GPT ADMITS ...

[M3n0r4h]

... an historical timeline overlap between the Anglo-Saxon race and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel.

The lost tribes went through a series of racial identities after leaving Assyria. They became the Gimri (Cimmerrians) and eventually the Scythians. While modern official archeological and historical positions claim that the Anglo-Saxon race somewhat mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early centuries AD, it also admits that the Scythians died out around that same time.

Chat GPT says:

“It’s a bit of a coincidence that the Scythian influence in their traditional territories declined around the same period that the Saxons began to emerge … “

What does this mean?

It is profoundly important evidence that the Anglo-Saxon race has a very legitimate connection to the lost tribes of Israel. This contradicts much of what is taught in schools and universities throughout the world.

There is something very strange going on in the world concerning the consideration of the Anglo race today and all races are noticing and declaring it on all platforms across the internet. Officially, it is not received well, but the average citizen is becoming very interested in this matter.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Church of God.” Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.

read more here

 

[M3n0r4h]

For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Church of God.” Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.

read more here

Yes, I've heard a bit about him. The 'read more' link you posted doesn't work for me. (shocker) Must be some good information there.

There are apparently a great many Americans who have discovered, and proclaimed, some version of an Anglo-Israel doctrine over the past couple centuries or so.

Here is a video that goes through a number of these people throughout history. At the end, he says there is a part 2 with about 50 more. I haven't seen that one yet.

It's a shame that this information is so taboo and frowned upon. In my opinion, it is much like Creation vs Evolution being taught in schools. They should teach both and allow everyone to research, reflect and decide for themselves what they believe. We know that's JUST not how the world works though.

Here is one that simply explains the concept "In a nutshell".

 

[Brakelite]

Either way it makes no difference. True Israel is the church, which includes those Israelites who have received Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

 

[Johann]

Yes, I've heard a bit about him. The 'read more' link you posted doesn't work for me. (shocker) Must be some good information there.

There are apparently a great many Americans who have discovered, and proclaimed, some version of an Anglo-Israel doctrine over the past couple centuries or so.

Here is a video that goes through a number of these people throughout history. At the end, he says there is a part 2 with about 50 more. I haven't seen that one yet.

It's a shame that this information is so taboo and frowned upon. In my opinion, it is much like Creation vs Evolution being taught in schools. They should teach both and allow everyone to research, reflect and decide for themselves what they believe. We know that's JUST not how the world works though.

Here is one that simply explains the concept "In a nutshell".

Guess we can throw Paul's letters into a bin-right?
J.

 

[Matthias]

”Is ChatGPT a credible source?

No, ChatGPT is not a credible source of factual information and can’t be cited for this purpose in academic writing. While it tries to provide accurate answers, it often gets things wrong because its responses are based on patterns, not facts and data.”

Is ChatGPT a credible source?

No, ChatGPT is not a credible source of factual information and can’t be cited for this purpose in academic writing. While it tries to provide accurate

www.scribbr.com

 

[Biblepaige]

... an historical timeline overlap between the Anglo-Saxon race and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel.

The lost tribes went through a series of racial identities after leaving Assyria. They became the Gimri (Cimmerrians) and eventually the Scythians. While modern official archeological and historical positions claim that the Anglo-Saxon race somewhat mysteriously appeared on the scene in the early centuries AD, it also admits that the Scythians died out around that same time.

Chat GPT says:



What does this mean?

It is profoundly important evidence that the Anglo-Saxon race has a very legitimate connection to the lost tribes of Israel. This contradicts much of what is taught in schools and universities throughout the world.

There is something very strange going on in the world concerning the consideration of the Anglo race today and all races are noticing and declaring it on all platforms across the internet. Officially, it is not received well, but the average citizen is becoming very interested in this matter.

Consider we only know what societies and academia sources release to our knowledge.

For instance. Years ago the Smithsonian,who received millions of federal funds every year, removed a gold pin replica of what they had identified as an insect of ancient Egyptian origin.

It was obviously not a flying bug. It looked more akin to our F15 or F22 fighters of today.

Smithsonian patrons repeatedly argued,despite Smithsonian countering, that the gold pin sold in the gift shop was a flying machine. Meaning it was thousands of years extant before the Wright brothers.

Smithsonian finally relented. And removed the pin from the gift shop inventory forever.
What else would such institutions hide in their vaults if it were judged the public would not accept their identifying it as this and so?

For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Church of God.” Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.

read more here

Dr Armstrong endured a great many critics during his ministry. One controversial topic he related is known as the serpent seed doctrine.

I caught some of it when tuning in late to his show. I found it later in full in YouTube. He supports everything he contends with scripture. And I can see where he believed it possible.

For me the one verse in Genesis when God cursed Adam and Eve that didn't make sense was when he said he would put enmity between her,Eve's seed, and your,the serpent's,seed.

How would a serpent's seed pertain to a woman's reproductive system?
Armstrong's explanation makes a case for that answer.

God rest Dr.Armstrong in his eternal peace. In Jesus name,Amen.

 

[Johann]

”Is ChatGPT a credible source?

No, ChatGPT is not a credible source of factual information and can’t be cited for this purpose in academic writing. While it tries to provide accurate answers, it often gets things wrong because its responses are based on patterns, not facts and data.”

Is ChatGPT a credible source?

No, ChatGPT is not a credible source of factual information and can’t be cited for this purpose in academic writing. While it tries to provide accurate

www.scribbr.com

Let's check this-using ChatGPT.

Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM

Joh 1:1 In Ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ was ἦν the ὁ Word, Λόγος, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος was ἦν with πρὸς - τὸν God, Θεόν, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος. was ἦν God. Θεὸς

Joh 1:1 In G1722 Prep en εν T1 Prep N1 In [the] beginning G746 n_ Dat Sg f arche αρχη T2 N-DFS beginning Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T3 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T4 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T5 N-NMS Word, And G2532 Conj kai και T6 Conj and The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T7 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T8 N-NMS Word Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T9 - - Toward G4314 Prep pros προσ T10 Prep with The G3588 t_ Acc Sg m ton τον T11 Art-AMS - God G2316 n_ Acc Sg m theon θεον T12 N-AMS God, And G2532 Conj kai και T13 Conj and God G2316 n_ Nom Sg m theos θεοσ T14 N-NMS God Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T15 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T16 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T17 N-NMS Word.

John 1:1 (Greek):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Word-for-Word Breakdown:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en archēi)

Ἐν (G1722) – Preposition, "in" (indicating a point in time or place)
ἀρχῇ (G746) – Noun, dative singular feminine, "beginning" (referring to the starting point, often seen as a temporal marker, akin to Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint).
Together: "In the beginning." The dative form here indicates the point in time, emphasizing a moment before time as we know it.

ἦν ὁ λόγος (ēn ho logos)

ἦν (G1510) – Verb, imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular, "was" (ongoing action in the past, indicating continual existence).
ὁ λόγος (G3056) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "the Word." The article ὁ (ho) makes "Logos" a definite noun, not an abstract concept, but a person or entity.
Together: "The Word was." The imperfect verb ἦν shows that the Logos existed continually "in the beginning." This indicates eternal preexistence.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon)

καὶ (G2532) – Conjunction, "and."
πρὸς (G4314) – Preposition, "with" (literally, "toward," denoting relationship, interaction, or movement).
τὸν θεόν (G2316) – Noun, accusative singular masculine, "God." The article τὸν (ton) makes this a specific reference to "the God," typically understood as God the Father.
Together: "And the Word was with God." The preposition πρὸς (pros) conveys a relational dynamic, suggesting an intimate relationship or face-to-face interaction. This implies that the Logos is distinct from the Father, yet in close communion with Him.

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos)

θεὸς (G2316) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "God." Notice θεὸς lacks the definite article, differentiating it from ὁ θεὸς (the God) earlier in the verse.
ὁ λόγος (G3056) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "the Word."
Together: "And the Word was God." The absence of the article before θεὸς (theos) suggests qualitative meaning, emphasizing the nature of the Word rather than equating Him as the same person as the Father. In Greek, placing θεὸς first (before the verb) emphasizes its qualitative aspect — the Word shares the essence or nature of God, but is distinct from the Father.

Show me error here @Matthias.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Let's check this-using ChatGPT.

Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM

Joh 1:1 In Ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ was ἦν the ὁ Word, Λόγος, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος was ἦν with πρὸς - τὸν God, Θεόν, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος. was ἦν God. Θεὸς

Joh 1:1 In G1722 Prep en εν T1 Prep N1 In [the] beginning G746 n_ Dat Sg f arche αρχη T2 N-DFS beginning Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T3 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T4 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T5 N-NMS Word, And G2532 Conj kai και T6 Conj and The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T7 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T8 N-NMS Word Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T9 - - Toward G4314 Prep pros προσ T10 Prep with The G3588 t_ Acc Sg m ton τον T11 Art-AMS - God G2316 n_ Acc Sg m theon θεον T12 N-AMS God, And G2532 Conj kai και T13 Conj and God G2316 n_ Nom Sg m theos θεοσ T14 N-NMS God Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T15 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T16 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T17 N-NMS Word.

John 1:1 (Greek):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Word-for-Word Breakdown:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ (en archēi)

Ἐν (G1722) – Preposition, "in" (indicating a point in time or place)
ἀρχῇ (G746) – Noun, dative singular feminine, "beginning" (referring to the starting point, often seen as a temporal marker, akin to Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint).
Together: "In the beginning." The dative form here indicates the point in time, emphasizing a moment before time as we know it.

ἦν ὁ λόγος (ēn ho logos)

ἦν (G1510) – Verb, imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular, "was" (ongoing action in the past, indicating continual existence).
ὁ λόγος (G3056) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "the Word." The article ὁ (ho) makes "Logos" a definite noun, not an abstract concept, but a person or entity.
Together: "The Word was." The imperfect verb ἦν shows that the Logos existed continually "in the beginning." This indicates eternal preexistence.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon)

καὶ (G2532) – Conjunction, "and."
πρὸς (G4314) – Preposition, "with" (literally, "toward," denoting relationship, interaction, or movement).
τὸν θεόν (G2316) – Noun, accusative singular masculine, "God." The article τὸν (ton) makes this a specific reference to "the God," typically understood as God the Father.
Together: "And the Word was with God." The preposition πρὸς (pros) conveys a relational dynamic, suggesting an intimate relationship or face-to-face interaction. This implies that the Logos is distinct from the Father, yet in close communion with Him.

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos)

θεὸς (G2316) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "God." Notice θεὸς lacks the definite article, differentiating it from ὁ θεὸς (the God) earlier in the verse.
ὁ λόγος (G3056) – Noun, nominative singular masculine, "the Word."
Together: "And the Word was God." The absence of the article before θεὸς (theos) suggests qualitative meaning, emphasizing the nature of the Word rather than equating Him as the same person as the Father. In Greek, placing θεὸς first (before the verb) emphasizes its qualitative aspect — the Word shares the essence or nature of God, but is distinct from the Father.

Show me error here @Matthias.

J.

See the Geneva Bible, for example.

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/New_Testament/John.pdf

Or any English translation from Greek published prior to 1611 (and many afterward.)

 

[Johann]

See the Geneva Bible, for example.

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/New_Testament/John.pdf

Or any English translation from Greek published prior to 1611 (and many afterward.)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God
Geneva Bible.


Joh 1:1 In G1722 Prep en εν T1 Prep N1 In [the] beginning G746 n_ Dat Sg f arche αρχη T2 N-DFS beginning Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T3 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T4 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T5 N-NMS Word, And G2532 Conj kai και T6 Conj and The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T7 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T8 N-NMS Word Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T9 - - Toward G4314 Prep pros προσ T10 Prep with The G3588 t_ Acc Sg m ton τον T11 Art-AMS - God G2316 n_ Acc Sg m theon θεον T12 N-AMS God, And G2532 Conj kai και T13 Conj and God G2316 n_ Nom Sg m theos θεοσ T14 N-NMS God Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T15 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T16 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T17 N-NMS Word.

My go to^^^^^^^



Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM


My go to-

Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM

BESURAS HAGEULAH
ACCORDING TO
YOCHANAN

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

My secondary Bible.

With exegetical commentaries-a few.

Shalom.
J.

 

[Matthias]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God
Geneva Bible.


Joh 1:1 In G1722 Prep en εν T1 Prep N1 In [the] beginning G746 n_ Dat Sg f arche αρχη T2 N-DFS beginning Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T3 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T4 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T5 N-NMS Word, And G2532 Conj kai και T6 Conj and The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T7 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T8 N-NMS Word Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T9 - - Toward G4314 Prep pros προσ T10 Prep with The G3588 t_ Acc Sg m ton τον T11 Art-AMS - God G2316 n_ Acc Sg m theon θεον T12 N-AMS God, And G2532 Conj kai και T13 Conj and God G2316 n_ Nom Sg m theos θεοσ T14 N-NMS God Was G2258 G5713 vi Impf vxx 3 Sg en ην T15 - - The G3588 t_ Nom Sg m ho ο T16 Art-NMS the word G3056 n_ Nom Sg m logos λογοσ T17 N-NMS Word.

My go to^^^^^^^



Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM


My go to-

Joh 1:1 enG1722 PREP archEG746 N-DSF EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM kaiG2532 CONJ oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S prosG4314 PREP tonG3588 T-ASM theonG2316 N-ASM kaiG2532 CONJ theosG2316 N-NSM EnG1510 V-IAI-3S oG3588 T-NSM logosG3056 N-NSM

BESURAS HAGEULAH
ACCORDING TO
YOCHANAN

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

My secondary Bible.

With exegetical commentaries-a few.

Shalom.
J.

Continue reading John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible. How does ChatGPT cope with that?

 

[Johann]

Continue reading John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible. How does ChatGPT cope with that?

Here's a question for you-do you study the Grammar, Syntax and morphology in John 1.1? Can you cope with this @Matthias?

12 But as many as received him, to them he gave prerogative to be the sons of
God, even to them that believe in his Name.
Geneva Bible

Not that I have anything against prerogative but isn't this more powerful?

The right (exousian). In Joh_5:27 edōken (first aorist active indicative of didōmi) exousian means authority but includes power (dunamis). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right.
RWP.

Power (ἐξουσίαν)
Rev., the right. Six words are used for power in the:New Testament: βία, force, often oppressive, exhibiting itself in violence (Act_5:26; Act_27:41. Compare the kindred verb βιάζεται, Mat_11:12; “the kingdom of heaven is taken by violence): δύναμις, natural ability (see on 2Pe_2:11): ἐνέργεια, energy, power in exercise; only of superhuman power, good or evil. Used by Paul only, and chiefly in the Epistles of the Imprisonment (Eph_1:19; Eph_3:7; Col_2:12. Compare the kindred verb ἐνεργέω, to put forth power, and see on Mar_6:14; see on Jas_5:16): ἰσχύς, strength (see on 2Pe_2:11. Compare the kindred verb ἰσχύω, to be strong, and see on Luk_14:30; see on Luk_16:3): κράτος, might, only of God, relative and manifested power, dominion (Eph_1:19; Eph_6:10; 1Ti_6:16; 1Pe_4:11. Compare the kindred verb κρατέω, to have power, to be master of, and see on Mar_7:3; see on Act_3:11): ἐξουσία, liberty of action (ἔξεστι, it is lawful), authority, delegated or arbitrary (Joh_5:27; Joh_10:18; Joh_17:2; Joh_19:10, Joh_19:11. See on Mar_2:10; see on Luk_20:20). Here, therefore, ἐξουσία is not merely possibility or ability, but legitimate right derived from a competent source - the Word.
VWS.

Right?
J.

 

[Matthias]

Here's a question for you-do you study the Grammar, Syntax and morphology in John 1.1?

Yes. The OT background of davar is the concept to keep in mind when reading the prologue.

Can you cope with this @Matthias?

12 But as many as received him, to them he gave prerogative to be the sons of
God, even to them that believe in his Name.
Geneva Bible

Not that I have anything against prerogative but isn't this more powerful?

The right (exousian). In Joh_5:27 edōken (first aorist active indicative of didōmi) exousian means authority but includes power (dunamis). Here it is more the notion of privilege or right.
RWP.

Power (ἐξουσίαν)
Rev., the right. Six words are used for power in the:New Testament: βία, force, often oppressive, exhibiting itself in violence (Act_5:26; Act_27:41. Compare the kindred verb βιάζεται, Mat_11:12; “the kingdom of heaven is taken by violence): δύναμις, natural ability (see on 2Pe_2:11): ἐνέργεια, energy, power in exercise; only of superhuman power, good or evil. Used by Paul only, and chiefly in the Epistles of the Imprisonment (Eph_1:19; Eph_3:7; Col_2:12. Compare the kindred verb ἐνεργέω, to put forth power, and see on Mar_6:14; see on Jas_5:16): ἰσχύς, strength (see on 2Pe_2:11. Compare the kindred verb ἰσχύω, to be strong, and see on Luk_14:30; see on Luk_16:3): κράτος, might, only of God, relative and manifested power, dominion (Eph_1:19; Eph_6:10; 1Ti_6:16; 1Pe_4:11. Compare the kindred verb κρατέω, to have power, to be master of, and see on Mar_7:3; see on Act_3:11): ἐξουσία, liberty of action (ἔξεστι, it is lawful), authority, delegated or arbitrary (Joh_5:27; Joh_10:18; Joh_17:2; Joh_19:10, Joh_19:11. See on Mar_2:10; see on Luk_20:20). Here, therefore, ἐξουσία is not merely possibility or ability, but legitimate right derived from a competent source - the Word.
VWS.

Right?
J.

It was with God and was God. Do you see that in the Geneva Bible rendering?

It, davar, the self-expression of the Messiah’s God, became flesh.

A person isn’t an it.

John is speaking about the incarnation of the Father’s self-expression, not about an incarnation of another person who is also God.

Now compare with the rendering of the prologue in KJV, or others. Is the same idea conveyed?

 

[Johann]

Yes. The OT bacground of davar is the concept to keep in mind when reading the prologue.



It was with God and was God. Do you see that in the Geneva Bible rendering?

It, davar, the self-expression of the Messiah’s God, became flesh.

A person isn’t an it.

John is speaking about the incarnation of the Father’s self-expression, not about an incarnation of another person who is also God.

Now compare with the rendering of the prologue in KJV, or others. Is the same idea conveyed?

Let's look at John 1:1 in the Geneva Bible (1599): @Matthias

Geneva Bible Translation:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and that Word was God."

This rendering clearly uses "the Word" (not "it") to describe the Logos. The Geneva Bible translates "Logos" as "the Word" consistently, just as most English translations do.

In both the Greek and the English, there is no "it" in reference to the Word (Logos) because Logos is understood as a personal being, not an abstract concept. The phrase "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" affirms the divinity of the Logos, who is later revealed as Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Greek Grammar:
In the original Greek text:

ὁ λόγος (ho logos) is a masculine noun, so it naturally takes masculine pronouns like "he" in English translations rather than "it."
The text affirms that the Logos (the Word) was both with God and was God, making it clear that the Word is divine but also distinct in relation to the Father.

The Geneva Bible, like many other translations, avoids "it" because the Word (Logos) is not an impersonal force, but a personal being-Jesus Christ, who is fully God and was with God in the beginning.

2) "And the Word was with God," (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) "And the word was (existed) with (in association with) God," before He "became flesh," Joh_1:14; Joh_17:5. Nor did He rob God of any Deity or honor in existing, co-existing with Him from eternity, or originating in eternity, Php_2:6; 2Co_8:9.

Feel free to correct as you see fit.
J.

 

[Matthias]

Let's look at John 1:1 in the Geneva Bible (1599): @Matthias

Geneva Bible Translation:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and that Word was God."

This rendering clearly uses "the Word" (not "it") to describe the Logos. The Geneva Bible translates "Logos" as "the Word" consistently, just as most English translations do.

In both the Greek and the English, there is no "it" in reference to the Word (Logos) because Logos is understood as a personal being, not an abstract concept. The phrase "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" affirms the divinity of the Logos, who is later revealed as Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Greek Grammar:
In the original Greek text:

ὁ λόγος (ho logos) is a masculine noun, so it naturally takes masculine pronouns like "he" in English translations rather than "it."
The text affirms that the Logos (the Word) was both with God and was God, making it clear that the Word is divine but also distinct in relation to the Father.

The Geneva Bible, like many other translations, avoids "it" because the Word (Logos) is not an impersonal force, but a personal being-Jesus Christ, who is fully God and was with God in the beginning.

Feel free to correct as you see fit.
J.

You say ”not it” but the Geneva Bible translators say “it”. Look at it again.

How do we reconcile “he” (King James) with “it” (Geneva Bible}?

 

[Johann]

You say ”not it” but the Geneva Bible translators say “it”. Look at it again.

How do we reconcile “he” (King James) with “it” (Geneva Bible}?

1) "All things were made by him," (panta de' autou egeneto) "All things became (came to be) through him," through Him as the instrumental, personal agency of creation, who spoke all things into existence, by the word of His power in colleague of affinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Gen_1:1-3; 1Co_8:6; Rev_3:14.

By Him (δἰ αὐτοῦ)
Literally, through him. The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, through the prophet (Mat_1:22, on which see note). It is the preposition by which the relation of Christ to creation is usually expressed (see 1Co_8:6; Col_1:16; Heb_1:2), though it is occasionally used of the Father (Heb_2:10; Rom_11:36, and Gal_1:1, where it is used of both). Hence, as Godet remarks, it “does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument,” but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son.
By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

by him. or, through him. Gr. dia. 1Co_8:6, Eph_3:9, Col_1:16-17, Heb_1:2; Heb_1:10.

Joh_1:3 "All things came into being through Him" The Logos was the Father's agent of creation of both the visible and the invisible (cf. Joh_1:10; 1Co_8:6; Col_1:16; Heb_1:2). This is similar to the role wisdom plays in Psa_104:24 and Pro_3:19; Pro_8:12-23 (in Hebrews "wisdom" is a feminine gender noun).
Joh_1:3. Πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. The connection is obvious: the Word was with God in the beginning, but not as an idle, inefficacious existence, who only then for the first time put forth energy when He came into the world. On the contrary, He was the source of all activity and life. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made which was made.”
The double sentence, positive and negative, is characteristic of John and lends emphasis to the statement.—πάντα, “grande verbum quo mundus, i.e., universitas rerum factarum denotatur” (Bengel). The more accurate expression for “all things” taken as a whole and not severally is τὰ πάντα (Col_1:16) or τὸ πᾶν; and, as the negative clause of this verse indicates, created things are here looked at in their variety and multiplicity. Cf. Marcus Aurelius, iv. 23, ὧ φύσις, ἐκ σοῦ πᾶντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σέ σοί πάντα, εἰς σέ πάντα.—διʼ αὐτοῦ. The Word was the Agent in creation. But it is to be observed that the same preposition is used of God in the same connection in Rom_11:36, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα; and in Col_1:16 the same writer uses the same prepositions not of the Father but of the Son when he says: τὰ μάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται. In 1Co_8:6 Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primal source of all things and the Son as the actual Creator. (In Greek philosophy the problem was to ascertain by whom, of what, and in view of what the world was made; ὑφʼ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ. And Lücke quotes a significant sentence from Philo (De Cherub., 35): εὑρήσεις αἴτιον μὲν αὐτοῦ (τοῦ κόσμου) τὸν θεὸν, ὑφʼ οὗ γέγονεν· ὓλην δὲ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν συνεκράθη· ὄργανον δὲ λόγον θεοῦ διʼ οὗ κατεσκευάσθη·)

I used RWP-MVS and more and cannot see an "it" anywhere here--but di' autou-through him.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.--In case you would want to call the Memra an "it" I guess it's OK?

How would you translate "it?"

Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular

Modal-ism is not for me.

J.

 

[Matthias]

1) "All things were made by him," (panta de' autou egeneto) "All things became (came to be) through him," through Him as the instrumental, personal agency of creation, who spoke all things into existence, by the word of His power in colleague of affinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Gen_1:1-3; 1Co_8:6; Rev_3:14.

By Him (δἰ αὐτοῦ)
Literally, through him. The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, through the prophet (Mat_1:22, on which see note). It is the preposition by which the relation of Christ to creation is usually expressed (see 1Co_8:6; Col_1:16; Heb_1:2), though it is occasionally used of the Father (Heb_2:10; Rom_11:36, and Gal_1:1, where it is used of both). Hence, as Godet remarks, it “does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument,” but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son.
By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

by him. or, through him. Gr. dia. 1Co_8:6, Eph_3:9, Col_1:16-17, Heb_1:2; Heb_1:10.

Joh_1:3 "All things came into being through Him" The Logos was the Father's agent of creation of both the visible and the invisible (cf. Joh_1:10; 1Co_8:6; Col_1:16; Heb_1:2). This is similar to the role wisdom plays in Psa_104:24 and Pro_3:19; Pro_8:12-23 (in Hebrews "wisdom" is a feminine gender noun).
Joh_1:3. Πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. The connection is obvious: the Word was with God in the beginning, but not as an idle, inefficacious existence, who only then for the first time put forth energy when He came into the world. On the contrary, He was the source of all activity and life. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made which was made.”
The double sentence, positive and negative, is characteristic of John and lends emphasis to the statement.—πάντα, “grande verbum quo mundus, i.e., universitas rerum factarum denotatur” (Bengel). The more accurate expression for “all things” taken as a whole and not severally is τὰ πάντα (Col_1:16) or τὸ πᾶν; and, as the negative clause of this verse indicates, created things are here looked at in their variety and multiplicity. Cf. Marcus Aurelius, iv. 23, ὧ φύσις, ἐκ σοῦ πᾶντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σέ σοί πάντα, εἰς σέ πάντα.—διʼ αὐτοῦ. The Word was the Agent in creation. But it is to be observed that the same preposition is used of God in the same connection in Rom_11:36, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα; and in Col_1:16 the same writer uses the same prepositions not of the Father but of the Son when he says: τὰ μάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται. In 1Co_8:6 Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primal source of all things and the Son as the actual Creator. (In Greek philosophy the problem was to ascertain by whom, of what, and in view of what the world was made; ὑφʼ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ. And Lücke quotes a significant sentence from Philo (De Cherub., 35): εὑρήσεις αἴτιον μὲν αὐτοῦ (τοῦ κόσμου) τὸν θεὸν, ὑφʼ οὗ γέγονεν· ὓλην δὲ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν συνεκράθη· ὄργανον δὲ λόγον θεοῦ διʼ οὗ κατεσκευάσθη·)

I used RWP-MVS and more and cannot see an "it" anywhere here--but di' autou-through him.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.--In case you would want to call the Memra an "it" I guess it's OK?

How would you translate "it?"

Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular

Modal-ism is not for me.

J.

Modalism is also not for me. Reconciliation of the translations doesn’t require it and other texts in scripture, in my view, exclude it entirely.

Contrary to what some members on Christianity Board have told me in the past*, reconciling “he” (KJV) and “it” (Geneva Bible) is simple. The problem (at this level of conversation, not in the halls of academia) is that it isn’t palatable to those who have decided beforehand that the two translations aren’t reconcilable; they’re close-minded.

As I stated earlier, “it” is the Father’s self-expression. Everything that he had in mind he spoke into being. John wants his readers to think back to the Genesis creation. He is setting the stage for us. The God who did that is expressing himself now in his Son, the Messiah.

”It” becomes “he” when “it” became flesh. That’s the incarnation of the Father’s davar / logos.

* Several have said that the Geneva Bible translators were not familiar with ancient Greek and weren’t capable of translating it properly into English. That’s an ignorant response. The translation was produced by some the finest minds in Protestant history; highly educated and skilled in the biblical languages. One suggested that the Geneva Bible is a corrupted translation; the translators having been influenced by the devil. That’s a ludicrous response, probably borne out of ignorance.

 

[Johann]

Modalism is also not for me. Reconciliation of the translations doesn’t require it and other texts in scripture, in my view, exclude it entirely.

Contrary to what some members on Christianity Board have told me in the past*, reconciling “he” (KJV) and “it” (Geneva Bible) is simple. The problem (at this level of conversation, not in the halls of academia) is that it isn’t palatable to those who have decided beforehand that they aren’t; they’re close-minded.

* Several have said that the Geneva Bible translators were not familiar with ancient Greek and weren’t capable of translating it properly into English. That’s an ignorant response. The translation was produced by some the finest minds in Protestant history; highly educated and skilled in the biblical languages. One suggested that the Geneva Bible is a corrupted translation; the translators having been influenced by the devil. That’s a ludicrous response, probably borne out of ignorance.

I wouldn’t go so far as to speak ill of the Geneva Bible or its translators. However, using common sense and referencing various translations, I understand the δι' αὐτοῦ (di' autou) in the Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular as referring to "him" - or rather, "through him," and not "it," @Matthias.

Still friends?
J.

 

[Johann]

Modalism is also not for me. Reconciliation of the translations doesn’t require it and other texts in scripture, in my view, exclude it entirely.

Contrary to what some members on Christianity Board have told me in the past*, reconciling “he” (KJV) and “it” (Geneva Bible) is simple. The problem (at this level of conversation, not in the halls of academia) is that it isn’t palatable to those who have decided beforehand that the two translations aren’t reconcilable; they’re close-minded.

As I stated earlier, “it” is the Father’s self-expression. Everything that he had in mind he spoke into being. John wants his readers to think back to the Genesis creation. He is setting the stage for us. The God who did that is expressing himself now in his Son, the Messiah.

”It” becomes “he” when “it” became flesh. That’s the incarnation of the Father’s davar / logos.

* Several have said that the Geneva Bible translators were not familiar with ancient Greek and weren’t capable of translating it properly into English. That’s an ignorant response. The translation was produced by some the finest minds in Protestant history; highly educated and skilled in the biblical languages. One suggested that the Geneva Bible is a corrupted translation; the translators having been influenced by the devil. That’s a ludicrous response, probably borne out of ignorance.

Just noted the edit-was Messiah or the davar a concept in the mind of YHVH, other words, do you believe Messiah pre-existed WITH YHVH?

J.

 

[Matthias]

I wouldn’t go so far as to speak ill of the Geneva Bible or its translators. However, using common sense and referencing various translations, I understand the δι' αὐτοῦ (di' autou) in the Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular as referring to "him" - or rather, "through him," and not "it," @Matthias.

Still friends?
J.

The key to reconciling the KJV rendering (“he”) with the Geneva Bible rendering (“it”) in the prologue of John’s Gospel is reading the KJV remdering as personification of God’s davar / logos. Cp. John’s own commentary on his prologue (which was already in the 1st century being misused / abused by the Gnostics) in 1 John 1.

Throwing the Geneva Bible translators under the proverbial bus - as some on this forum have done - is their witness against themselves. In other words, it says something about themselves. It can only harm the translators / translation in the minds of equally uneducated and ill-informed minds.

I don’t require people to believe what I believe in order for them to be my friends.

As I think you realize, I don’t subscribe to any of the creeds that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t themselves subscribe to in the 1st century. Having said that, I do however agree with the Apostles’ Creed when it comes to explicitly identifying who the creator is - I find it fully supported in John’s prologue and throughout scripture (i.e. the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament).