What do you think the dozens of translators were doing in the miscellaneous versions they translated? Do you realize that people with credentials, experience, and expertise translated the Bible? They're all wrong and you're right?
The thing is, I
am basing everything on those with the relevant expertise; you're not. You have only given your opinion which is based on poor reasoning, as I have shown before and will show again. Of course, it depends on
precisely what "word of life" is referring to. Here is what the experts say:
"It" isn't actually in the Greek text in verse 2; it's added by some translators. Second, the Word of life
is most likely an indirect reference to Jesus, "meaning something
relating to the person and revelation of Christ. . . . The successive clauses,
that which was from the beginning, etc., express, not the
Eternal Word Himself, but something
relating to or
predicated concerning (περί) Him. The indefinite
that which, is approximately defined by these clauses; that about the Word of Life which was from the beginning, that which appealed to sight, to hearing is, to touch" (M. R. Vincent).
Or, read Albert Barnes's thoughts on verse 1:
'The apostle, in speaking of “that which was from the beginning,” uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine, (ὅ ho.) It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term “directly” to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was “whatever” there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to.
He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate; the proofs that he was manifested; and he says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase “that which,” (ὅ ho.) The sense may be this: “Whatever there was respecting the Word of life, or him who is the living Word, the incarnate Son of God, from the very beginning, from the time when he was first manifested in the flesh; whatever there was respecting his exalted nature, his dignity, his character, that could be subjected to the testimony of the senses, to be the object of sight, or hearing, or touch, that I was permitted to see, and that I declare to you respecting him.” John claims to be a competent witness in reference to everything which occurred as a manifestation of what the Son of God was.'
Wuest states in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament:
"John begins his letter with a relative pronoun in the neuter gender, "that which." The reference is to things relating to the Lord Jesus. We are not to understand the expression as equivalent to "He who." The preposition "of" in the expression "of the Word of life" is
peri, "concerning." This speaks of the things concerning our Lord, rather than of Him personally." (vol. 2, p. 87)
Here is Wuest's translation of those two verses:
"1Jn 1:1 (1-2) That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard with the present result that it is ringing in our ears, that which we have discerningly seen with our eyes with the present result that it is in our mind's eye, that which we gazed upon as a spectacle, and our hands handled with a view to investigation, that which is concerning the Word of the life and this aforementioned life was made visible, and we have seen it with discernment and have it in our mind's eye, and are bearing witness and bringing back to you a message concerning the life, the eternal life, which is of such a nature as to have been in fellowship with the Father and was made visible to us."
On the one hand,
if you want to say "the word of life" is an "indirect reference to Jesus," or "the Word," then your argument is moot. On the other hand,
if you want to argue that "the word of life" is synonymous with "the Word," of John 1:1, it is fallacious to argue that because John uses a neuter gender that the word of life is an "it" and, therefore, the Word is an "it," I have pointed out before the error of that reasoning which is based on willful ignorance of the Greek:
First, according to Mounce, the gender of nouns, for the most part, don't indicate the gender of the object. That is, grammatical gender doesn't indicate personal gender. Second, you previously stated that: "There is also the understanding that since God the Father is Himself a Holy Spirit that where Holy Spirit is mentioned that it wouldn't be a reference to a third person in a Trinity, but rather another name for the Father."
However, the gender of a noun never changes, so the Holy Spirit cannot be both an "it" in one context and refer to the Father in another context. You have to pick one--"he" or "it."
Third, you have also argued, incorrectly, that the Father is the true light of John 1:9, but "light" is neuter. So, once again, you are implying that the Father is an "it," or at least an "it" and a "he," but, again, that cannot be the case. Fourth,
logos is masculine, which according to you means the
logos is a "he," and cannot be a mere personification.‘
And we see in John 14:16-17:
First, look at verse 16, where
parakletos is masculine, which, according to your reasoning, means the Helper is a he. Again, which is it? Is the Holy Spirit a "he" or an "it"? Second, as I already stated in response to your use of this verse, context matters, which is what you say here. Again, when we look at the context, which includes verse 16, and the meanings of
parakletos--Advocate, Counselor, Comforter, Helper--those are actions of personal agency only. The Holy Spirit is another
parakletos because Jesus is the first (1 John 2:1). And we see many actions of personal agency attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. I did give many verses in support, but you left them unaddressed.
Third, "spirit,"
ruach, in Hebrew is feminine, but masculine in Aramaic. Which are you going to go with? Jesus said that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," which, according to you, shows that the Spirit is neuter. But that is a quote from Isa 61:1, where Spirit is feminine. So, again, which is it?
To sum, then, it is clear that your argument that the word of life is an "it" because the neuter gender is used, is fallacious; it is factually incorrect. Also, in 1 John 1:1-3, John uses some language from John 1:1-18 in alluding to the entire life and ministry of Jesus, and indirectly refers to the Word, in whom “was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). John refers to the empirical evidences that proved the Son was the eternal life “which was with the Father.”
That's about Word being something in God's heart, i.e., in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) that existed in God's foreknowledge and plan. This should be clear from the reading of John 1:18 that Jesus wasn't literally in God's chest. It's figurative language or do you maintain Jesus pre-existed in God's chest?
What you missed here is that this is in the present tense, not that it matters. It's literal and what it means is better seen in another version:
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)
As Albert Barnes says:
"
In the bosom of the Father - This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. . . . It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another - knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known."
I have addressed your argument(s) repeatedly. If you feel there is something that has not been addressed then please bring it up here and I will thoroughly refute it on record so we don't come to this misunderstanding again.
There is much you have left unaddressed and I don't think you will address those things. The last time I posted some of the above, this is what you responded with: "1 John 1:1,2 says the word of life is an it. I see it right there on the pages.
I am not reading paragraph after paragraph of your workaround to attempt undo that." You're not interested in the truth, as shown by your unwillingness to not only not do your own proper study, but also to not listen to those who have done at least some proper study. So, you're on record as refusing to address my arguments.
