Friday, January 6, 2012

john 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God -
and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing
made that was made.

In Him was life; and the life was the Light of men.


And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
~~~

John 1:1-5 is the Heart of Theology.

Here God gives us the Truth of who Jesus was - and is:

In John 1:1-5 God says in no uncertain terms that God and
Jesus are One. 

In the beginning (when God created the Earth)
the Word (Jesus) was there - with God.

Then he repeats himself - if we didn't get it the first time:

The same (the Word or Jesus) was in the beginning (Creation) with God.

All things (Creation) were made by Him (the Word/Jesus);
and without Him (the Word/Jesus) was not any thing made
that was made (Creation).

In Him (the Word/Jesus) was Life (Light);
And the Life (the Light/the Word/Jesus) was the Light (Hope/Love/His
Teachings etc.) of men (mankind.)

And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.

For me this last part says that when Jesus (the Word) came to
us we didn't understand who He was.

Now I am choosing to think that 'comprehended it not' means
that we don't always 'get it' or we are not capable of 'getting it'
unless we look to Jesus - the Word and the Light - for guidance.

For me John 1:1-5 is not the most beautiful and poetic Scripture
in the Bible - but merely the most meaningful.

For me John 1:1-5 holds the key to the Kingdom of Heaven.
~~~

It has been a long day for stidh - putting away Christmas decorations and
at the same time organizing the garage - so if I seem even a little confused
on this then please someone step up and say something.

Or if anyone has a slightly different take on it then I would welcome any
comment about it.

Thanks.

7 comments:

  1. In "The New World Translation" of the Bible from Ancient Greek to English, John 1:1 is translated:


    "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

    The addition of the indefinite article 'a' to modify the final word 'god' and the fact the final word 'god' is left uncapitalised leads me to believe you do not use this translation of the Bilble.
    Which English translation do you use? And how do you know yours is 'better' than The New World Translation?
    As I read and write Ancient Greek and have examined the earliest renditions of John 1:1 to be found on ancient papyrus, and in some cases, velum, I know which is the more correct.
    I believe it is not possible to know the word of god unless you can read Ancient Greek. If you rely only on some English translation by men who may, or may not, have a secret agenda you risk being misinformed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for the compliment on my post - DeanO.


    Sad putting away the Christmas decorations?


    No - not really.


    Christmas will come again next year.


    I hope you will comment again soon -DeanO.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aquarian - Thanks for commenting on my religion
    blog.

    I only use the King James Version of the Bible.
    I don't think it is better than any other translation - it is the one that I use and I will ever use. It works for me.

    You have the right to use any translation that you believe in. I do not read or write Greek - nor will I ever.

    So if you only wish to discuss my post in terms of that - then we will get nowhere.

    However you are always welcome here - and maybe another commenter would like to discuss your translation.


    thanks aquarian

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not believe in any translation - especially the one the "Watchtower" and "Awake" folks use!
    I merely question whether a given translation is accurate and reflects the true word of god.
    The King James Version is one of the better translations of the original Ancient Greek texts. It does, however, suffer from many 'irregularities' - specifically the use of Elizabethan English. Sixteenth Century English is very different than 21st Century English.
    For instance if you were to say:

    "Fred and Bruce went into a gay bar and proceeded to engage in heated intercourse in the Men's Room."

    In 1612 you would be understood as having said: "Fred and Bruce went into a happy/jovial roadhouse but had a terrible argument in the Men's Room"

    In 2012 what would folks think you mean?

    Words change their meaning over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You make a good point there - Aquarian.

    One of the differences between you and me - at this point in time - is that in your phrase:

    'reflects the true word of god'


    if I were to have written that I would
    have capitalized the word god:

    God


    You see I believe in the capitalized God.

    If someone were to say:

    Jesus is king

    I would want to correct it as such:

    Jesus is King



    but then that is just my opinion



    As far as Fred and Bruce - well - if they were to go into a men's room in a gay bar - and they had intercourse - I would probably not think of it as 'heated.'

    : ]

    ReplyDelete
  6. Would you think of it as 'hot' then?
    I do understand the word 'heated' does normally apply to arguments and not sex, but I needed to use the word to make my point.

    Bill Maher, a fan of yours I read, would not capitalise the 'g' in god either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aquarian - Please do not play around here about Bill Maher.

    Where did you read that he is a fan of mine. Or
    are you just trying to stir things up. I am a fan of his. I have no indication that he even knows I exist.

    As far as whether Bill would capitalize God - that is his opinion.

    My 'feelings' for him are based on three and a half years of reading his books, watching his show, and also faithfully wathcing three of his videos. And also catching him on tv via Leno,
    Letterman and Piers Morgan.

    Now if you happen to know that he will be making an appearance on ones of these shows in the following week - as he always does before he comes back on after break - please let me know.

    And yes - Aquarian - the use of 'hot' is appropriate when talking about sex - rather than 'heated' - which I think works better when arging.


    A footnote:

    I don't mind talk about sex - hot or not - but I want to make it clear that I never watch it - for I do not think it was intended as a spectator sport.

    And anyway I am celibate.

    ReplyDelete