by brandon_the many 90 Replies latest watchtower bible
DDog,
The definitions we should use depends on context. In this case you seem stuck only on one use. Are the things under discussion human? If not the answer is not. The verses speaks for themselves. What is your point? Do you think you found something here? If so where and how?
Joseph
Okay Joseph, you can impose this on the text, what does this do for you?
EW
Joe
What is your point?
I think you just got it.
The definitions we should use depends on context.
What (in the context of John chapter 1) says "things" only refer to humans? Show us the restriction in or from the text.
Do you think you found something here? If so, show us (from the text) where and how? It appears that you are reading a restriction into the text.
D Dog
Joe
In this case you seem stuck only on one use.
I think it is you that is stuck on one use.
D Dog
What (in the context of John chapter 1) says "things" only refer to humans?
DDog,
Wrong question. What (in the context of John chapter 1) says "things" refers to more than the humans under discussion for which the Word became flesh? You keep ignoring what the text is discussing. So where is your proof?
Joseph
welcome to the board brandon the many - The Trinity - ah well -lets no go there
welcome to the board crudell
Sorry Joe
The Word becoming flesh, has no bearing on the meaning of "all" or "things". You have yet to show any such restriction even implied in the text.
The Word can surely come and dwell among all animal, plants, and things. If not where does the text prohibit that meaning. The burden is on you to show such a prohibition.
Wrong question. What (in the context of John chapter 1) says "things" refers to more than the humans under discussion for which the Word became flesh? You keep ignoring what the text is discussing. So where is your proof?
I can't prove it's not there, I don't need to, and would have no reason to try. If you want to believe it's implied, that is up to you. But you can't prove there is such a prohibition in the text, or can you? Show me! Point out the verse that tells you that he was speaking of men only.
D Dog
From my previous post on this thread, ignored by JosephMalik so far:
panta, hen, ho in v. 3 are all neuter (with the characteristic agreement of the verb egeneto, singular with a neuter plural subject, cf. the famous ta zoa trekhei), whence "things". Humanity is explicitly introduced as a further focus in v. 4b with anthrôpôn (also v. 9).
Nark
I couldn't have said it any better!
Only with pretty painful eisegesis can one read a limitation to "humans" into the "all" of v. 3.D Dog
