Duane Melgarejo Cartujano9

SAYANG AT WALA AKONG PAGKAKATAONG SAGUTIN ANG MGA IPINAHAYAG NI MR. JOE VENTILACION LABAN SA AKING SINABI HINGGIL SA JUAN 10:30 SA PAMAMAGITAN NG “KNOW THE TRUTH” PROGRAM. GAYUNPAMAN, MAGBIBIGAY AKO NG AKING MAIKLING KOMENTO SA PAMAMAGITAN NG FACEBOOK:

1.) MAS TAMANG SALIN BA ANG “MY FATHER AND I ARE UNITED” KAYSA “I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.”?

Sinabi ni Joe Ventilacion na kakalabanin ko daw ang mga nagsalin ng mga versions na may “My Father and I are United” nang sabihin kong mali ang translation na ito. Ilang versions ba ang sumasang-ayon sa interpretasyon ni Ventilacion? Ipinakita nila sa screen ang mga salin na Simple English Bible, International English Bible at Contemporary English Version at ang mga ito daw ay kinakalaban ko. Ngayon, kahit isama pa niya ang Lamsa translation para maging apat na ang translations na kumakampi sa kanya, ilang salin naman ang kinakalaban niya na walang nakasulat na “united”?

Dalawampu’t dalawang salin (22) ang kinakalaban din ni Joe Ventilacion dahil mas gusto niya ang “My Father and I are United” kaysa sa “I and the Father are one.”. Ang mga saling ito ay ang mga sumusunod: New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Berean Study Bible, Berean Literal Bible, New American Standard Bible, Christian Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, 
NET Bible, New Heart English Bible, GOD’S WORD® Translation New American Standard 1977, Jubilee Bible 2000, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version , Webster’s Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible at Young’s Literal Translation

Kung isasalin natin talaga word for word sa greek ang “My Father and I are United,” ay ganito ang lalabas niyan “EGO 
KAI HO PATER HENOPOIOS ESMEN” at hindi “EGO KAI HO PATER HEN ESMEN..”

2.) TAMA BA ANG TRANSLATION NI GEORGE LAMSA SA JUAN 10:30 NA “I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE IN ACCORD”?

Para sa kanya tama na naman ang John 10:30 pero ayaw din nilang tanggapin ang nasa Hebrews 1:8 ng Lamsa translation dahil sa hindi ito sumasang-ayon sa kanilang paniniwala.

Ang tanong tama nga ba ang saling ito ni Lamsa sa John 10:30?

Alam ng ilan sa atin na ang Lamsa translation ay isinalin mula sa Peshitta at sa Peshitta ang “My Father and I are One” ay katumbas nito ang “Ena wa-avi had hnan.” Ang “Accord” ay wala sa Peshitta, ito ay interpretitive statement lamang.

3.) ANO ANG TAMANG PAGBIGKAS NG ἕν SA JOHN 10:30, “EN” O “HEN”?

Bagamat alam ni Ventilacion na ang mga Bible scholars ay binibigkas bilang “HEN” ang greek word na ἕν pero iba pa rin ang kanyang pagbigkas dito.

Ang greek word na ito ay may “ROUGH BREATHING”, so one could say: “The neuter form “hen” (to distinguish from “en” meaning “in, within.”)

4.) TAMA BANG GAMITIN ANG JOH 17:22-23 EXEGETICALLY PARA SUPORTAHAN ANG PANINIWALA NG MGA HINDI NANINIWALA SA PAGKADIYOS NI CRISTO TUNGKOL SA KANILANG INTERPRETASYON SA JOHN 10:30?

Ginamit ni Ventilacion ang John 17:22-23 para suportahan ang kaniyang interpretasyon sa John 10:30. Ang problema yung pahayag ni D.A. Carson sa isa pa niyang aklat ay hindi binabasa ni Ventilacion dahil ito ay komokontra sa kanyang interpretasyon. Ang ganitong klaseng interpretasyon ay isa sa mga tinatawag na “Exgetical Fallacies.”

“Some of these are forces to the surface when we consider the Arian efforts to link John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one,” NIV) and John 17:20-23 (“I pray…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you,” NIV). What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together, and not others? The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with the way several passages are linked–and then also with the way such a link affects the interpretation of the next verses that is studied!”(Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson, Page 139)

5.) HINDI BA SUMUSUPORTA ANG JOHN 10:30 SA PAGKADIYOS NI CRISTO?

May mga ginamit si Ventilacion na mga commentaries sa kanyang mga pahayag na ang John 10:30 ay hindi puweding gamitin para patunayang Diyos ang ating Panginoong Jesus at ginamit niya ang commentary ng isang Bible scholar na si D.A. Carson. Nakapaloob sa commentary ni Carson na dahil sa ginamit ang “Neuter” at hindi “Masculine” ay hindi ang John 10:30 nagpapahayag na iisa ang persona ng AMA at ni Jesus at tama naman yun dahil naniniwala tayo na distinct ang person ng AMA sa ating Panginoong Jesus, hindi katulad ng paniniwala ng mga ONENESS. Pero ito ba ay nagpapatunay na hindi na sila IISA sa Nature bilang Diyos?

Ang problema, hindi itinuloy ni Ventilacion ang pagbasa ng commentary ni D.A. Carson.Sana naging maliwanag ang issue tungkol sa statement ni Carson. Naririto ang karugtong ng commentary na hindi binasa ni Ventilacion:

The following five points may help to clarify the issues:

(1) The language of ‘oneness’ itself is not decisive. This is made 
clear by 17:22, where Jesus prays that his disciples ‘may be one as we are one’.

(2) On the other hand, an appeal to 17:22 cannot decisively prove that the claim ‘I and the Father are one‘, in this passage, refers merely to a oneness of will or action, and stands utterly devoid of metaphysical overtones. After all, this is a book in which the Word is openly declared to be God (1:1, 18), in which the climactic confession is ‘My Lord and my God!’ (20:28), in which Jesus takes on his own lips the name of God (8:58), in which numerous Old Testament references and especially allusions portray Jesus standing where God alone stands (e.g. 12:41). The reader should therefore hesitate before denying that there is any claim to deity whatsoever in these words.

(3) The immediate context is the most important single control. 
This includes not only the clearly functional categories of vv. 
28–29 (viz. Jesus and his Father share the same will and task, the preservation of Jesus’ sheep), but two other factors. First, this is of a piece with 5:16ff. There, too, the Jews understood Jesus to be speaking blasphemy, because he claimed to be God. As we saw, they were partly right and partly wrong. They were wrong in that they envisaged another God, a competing God; they were right in that Jesus not only claimed that he could do only what his Father gave him to do, but that he did everything the Father did (5:19). No other human being in the stream of Jewish monotheism could meaningfully make such a claim. Second, the oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed.

Maliban kay Carson ay meron pa tayong ibang mga Bible scholars na naniniwala na ang pahayag ng Panginoong Jesus sa John 10:30 ay nagpapatunay ng kanyang pagkaDiyos.

Ito ang sabi ng isang Biblle scholar na si Craig S. Keener:

10:30. His hearers might think of the relation between Israel and 
God, but Jesus’ wording about his unity with the Father is too 
explicit for that: instead he echoes the basic confession of Judaism that God is one (Deut 6:4). For Jesus to be one with the Father (albeit distinct from him) is tantamount to a claim to deity. (THE IVP BIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTARY BY CRAIG S. KEENER)

Sabi rin ni Philip Comfort:

“In the Gospel narrative, Jesus declares that he existed before 
Abraham even came into being (8:58), and he asserts that he and the Father are one (10:30) —an assertion that the Jewish leaders undeniably understood as a claim to deity (10:31-33), for they attempted to stone him for blasphemy. ” (Encountering the Manuscripts, Page 226:)