More spunketism lies. In #1197 you wrote "All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that. That's all I'm concerned with."
That means it's really the "scholarship" of the Jews translating Hebrew for their own Bibles and the myriad of folks translating Koine Greek and Russian that you have a problem with.
I have no problems with original sources, just with faulty and misleading English translations.
Here's what you copied and pasted as if it was your own work
It is my work, word for word. That's why I didn't reference it.
Ridiculous? Why, because all English Bibles say "with?" Well not all. The reason English Bibles say "with" is because "at" (pros) is awkward in English, as is toward. The Bibles are written so they can be read like prose. That necessitates some changes and unfortunately some of these grammatical necessities often change the meaning of the whole verse.
Слово было у translates: word was with
Case in point. The Russian preposition 'y' (u) doesn;t mean with but at, towards, in, near, among, etc. but never "with"! Russian with is 'c' (s).
I was actually wrong about the Church Slavonic version of John 1:1(which is not Russian, but is closely related to Russian and to my native Serbian). I assumed it would be the same as in Russian (u Boga), but it is actually exactly as it reads in Greek: къ Богу (k Bogu). The preposition 'к' means to, by, towards, against, etc., just the way the Greek verson reads.
Here's a neutral translator (Google), unless of course they've conspired with the Catholic's to thwart your efforts to spread the truth
I don't need it. I can read and understand Russian and Church Slavonic. They are very close to my native language, and CS is the liturgical languges used to this day in Eastern churches and I am fully fmailair with the liturgy.
Oh look! Everyone, regardless of the final language translates John 1:1 as "...THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" They all think John wrote, "JESUS WAS GOD". ... probably all just a conspiracy against your efforts to spread the truth.
You know, being intentionally myopic is not very smart. You are using only Christian sources, which are doctirnally hamronized to support Christain beliefs. using thema s any profo is circualr reasonsing.
There are many other sources which disagree with all your doctrinally tainted English Bibles. But the real problem with John 1:1 that I owuld be cocnerned wiht if I were you is not whether the Word was with, at, near, by, towards, or in presence of God, but whether it says that the word was a God rather than God.
Even worse, either way, John 1:1 completely destroys your idea that the Word and God are one and the same "person".
"More spunketism lies. In #1197 you wrote "All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that. That's all I'm concerned with."
That statement doesn't match the statement you made in #1213, to which I replied to in #1226. IOWs, what I said in #1197 doesn't match what you said in #1213. So calling me a liar is just more false witness.
"Ridiculous? Why, because all English Bibles say "with?" Well not all.
Your link gives the translaiton: WITH. Note the translation they give is "was with God". They include the Greek as Strong's #4314, which clearly says a proper translation is "WITH".
Re: Слово было у translates: word was with
"The Russian preposition 'y' (u) doesn;t mean with but at, towards, in, near, among, etc. but never "with"! Russian with is 'c' (s).
с Богом translates to "with God". было у Бога translates to "was with God"
"You know, being intentionally myopic is not very smart. You are using only Christian sources, which are doctirnally hamronized to support Christain beliefs. using thema s any profo is circualr reasonsing."
Proof only counts in hte fields of logic and mathematics. Google is not a Christian source.
"There are many other sources which disagree with all your doctrinally tainted English Bibles. But the real problem with John 1:1 that I owuld be cocnerned wiht if I were you is not whether the Word was with, at, near, by, towards, or in presence of God, but whether it says that the word was a God rather than God."
A single source is not many and John certainly did not refer to Jesus as "a god", because "a god" refers to more than one god and no man other than Jesus(the Word) was with God in the beginning. Judaism is monotheistic grasshopper and Jesus was a Jew. John was referring to "the Word" as Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, who was God and still is.