- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64@Mar. 20 2011 @ 13:30) And to answer your question the FIRST time with the ONLY HONEST ANSWER there is………….”YES”, “THE God” is also GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE from the Greek words,
Do you see how I answered your question, D? Did I say, “IF one believes it”? You asked a DIRECT question, and I gave a DIRECT and HONEST answer, though not even the Trinni's believe in “THE God” for 1:1c. But that doesn't matter, because you didn't ask me if Trinni's believe in a “THE God” translation of 1:1c, did you? You asked if it was GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE, and since it most definitely IS, I HONESTLY ANSWERED WITH “YES”.Now you want to know if “God was the Word” is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. ABSOULTELY, POSITIVELY YES! Again, as Kathi has pointed out, it is not LIKELY, but it is most definitely GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
Again, notice how I don't answer your DIRECT question by giving “what if's” and “maybe's” and “I disagree's”. The question you asked is a YES or NO question, so I answered it with a YES or NO, didn't I?
My question to you is also a YES or NO question. There is only one answer, and that answer is in green letters right above the question itself. Please answer it DIRECTLY with a YES or a NO.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
Dont you find relying on Possisbilities or making excuses for certain aspects as Diversions?
Not a chance. Take Heb 1:8 for instance. Trinni's don't even consider any other possibilty except, “Jesus is called theos, therefore he is God Almighty”. And for them, it's cut and dry and PROVES that Jesus is God Almighty. I'm the guy saying, “Now wait just a minute here…………..first of all, being called theos isn't any claim to being God Almighty. Secondly, this particular theos has a God of his own according to 1:9. Thirdly, it's commonly accepted by trinitarian scholars that the Psalm that was quoted in 1:8 is about a human king who is called elohim in the text. So how does applying a scripture about a human king to Jesus all of a sudden make him God Almighty?”And what have I done there, D? I have raised the POSSIBILITY that Heb 1:8 isn't quite as cut and dry as the trinni's would have liked to think. Because if it's POSSIBLE that Jesus is not really being referred to as God Almighty in 1:8, then it's no longer a PROOF text, but a MAYBE or WISHFUL THINKING text. And when you place all of your MAYBE texts up against REAL undeniable PROOF texts like the ones that tell us Jesus is not God, the the Son OF that One, then in the end, the REAL PROOF TEXTS will stand triumphant over the various MAYBE and WISHFUL THINKING texts that the trinni's have come up with throughout the years.
And you all KNOW this! And therefore you guys are hesitant to answer a direct question about an UNDENIABLE FACT of Greek grammar, because you know what your honest and direct answer will do. It will immediately raise other POSSIBILITES, which in turn will change John 1:1 from one of your “proof texts” into just another WISHFUL THINKING text.
Here's the FACT of the matter, D. The Greek language does not have an indefinite article. Translators add that indefinite article into English translations over 1000 times in the NT alone. The AKJV has added it 8432 times in the whole Bible. It is added as context dictates. But there is NO GREEK GRAMMAR RULE whatsoever in the history of the world that would prohibit the “a” from being added into 1:1c. That is a FACT. It is UNDENIABLE and IRREFUTABLE. And once you guys are HONEST enough to ADMIT this UNDENIABLE FACT, then I will begin to show how the context DOES dictate the “a” in this case.
Heck, I could make my case leaving 1:1c anthrous, like it is in most translations now. But I want everyone to know and acknowledge the WHOLE truth of the matter before I destroy John 1:1 as any kind of trinitarian “proof text”. And the WHOLE truth of the matter is that there are NO Greek rules prohibiting any of the following translations:
1. the word was god
2. the word was a god
3. the word was the god
4. god was the wordSo let's all just acknowledge this FACT already, so we can move on to the CONTEXTUAL discussion.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
I believe your on the same boat buddy.
How so? Have I not answered your questions directly and honestly – even though I don't personally believe “THE God” to be correct in 1:1c?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
Your Questions have strings attached, and always have had strings attached.
My questions have NO strings, and never have. They are not “loaded” questions. They are simple questions that you guys consider loaded simply because you know where a truthful answer to them will leave you.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
Didnt i already answer the questions in the BIG BOLD letters?
I saw neither a big bold “YES” nor a big bold “NO” in your post. One of those two is the ONLY honest and direct answer to the question. So please answer my question with one of those two words.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
HOWEVER, You can infact negate thier reasonings which will lead to start a debate.
Bingo! And although it might kill Keith, I will negate them using Keith's own words.
So hurry up and answer my question so we can get to it.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,00:34)
Maybe rebuilding bridges instead of burning them can help you accomplish what you want.
I appreciate the thought, and will consider it. I will not discourse with liars, though. Would you? I mean, what's the point? If scripture “x” contains the word “elohim” – plain as day for all to see – yet someone insists that the word “elohim” is NOT in scripture “x”, why bother? I won't debate with those who will not acknowledge very clear truths and facts. Here's a fake example:Keith says, “Mike, Dennison is really smart.”
Then Kathi says, “Jack, ACCORDIN
G TO KEITH'S WORDS ABOVE, is Dennison really smart?”And then Jack says, “NO! NO! NO! Because I don't personally think he's smart, therefore the answer to your question, Kathi, is NO!”
Do you get the point? The question never was if Jack thought you were smart. The question was does KEITH think you're smart. Get it? That's how MY question to you is. My question doesn't allow for what YOU PERSONALLY THINK. My question only asks you to read what two other dudes have written, and answer ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY THINK.
mike
Mike,
does that sound familiar? “God cannot be healer unless there is pain to heal”?
haha, this newcomer has conjured up old arguemet, shall we dance with it together?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,02:09) Hi Kathi!!!
I MIss you!!! i was thinking about you the other day and how we needed you back and guess what here you are!!!
Miss you bunch lady!Welcome back
Hi Dennison,
It's is nice to be missed…thank you for thinkin' me back hereBless ya,
KathiQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2011,22:56) My conclusion is that it may be grammatically ok to consider an 'a' and a small 'g,' but in light of the rest of the book and how John writes, contextually it would be incorrect.
Hi Kathi,Thanks for your input. I'm aching to discuss the CONTEXTUAL possibilities, and blow you “Jesus is God” people right out of the water with Keith's own words. But I won't do it until everyone has agreed to the UNDENIABLE FACT that the Greek into English translation of John 1:1c ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY allows for the GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY of “a god”.
You have come the closest of anyone to ANSWERING my question. But even you have not actually answered it. I'm not asking for anyone's OPINION as to whether or not it “may be grammitically ok”, and I haven't even yet begun to show any arguments for the contextual debate. Here's the question I want answered:
Quote Trinitarian Greek EXPERT Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60. Trinitarian Greek EXPERT C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Do you guys even SEE the question put before you? First, I quote two experts who say “a god” IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. Then I ask ACCORDING TO THESE EXPERTS, is “a god” GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE?
Aren't you guys reading the actual question? There is no available answer EXCEPT FOR “YES”. Because CLEARLY, ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS I QUOTED, “a god” IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, even though Harris clearly thinks that the the “a god” translation is a CONTEXTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Do any of you understand this? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something.
I'm not asking about the NWT and how they translate other mentions of “theos”. I'm not talking about Jesus' divinity. I'm not even asking if you AGREE with these two scholars I quoted. I'm merely asking a very simple question that I've been asking now for two freakin' weeks! And no one is willing to just honestly say, “YES, Mike! According to the two scholars you quoted, 'a god' IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY for 1:1c.”Kathi, I apologize because you have just joined in. But mikeangel, Keith, Jack and Dennison shouldn't have ever made me ask the question more than once in the first place. They should have just honestly answered “YES”, because it is the only honest and direct answer to the question.
peace and love,
mike
Mike, Mike, Mike,
Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion. Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible. As I have said before, it really doesn't matter if it is 'a' or 'the' if you let v. 18 clarify for you that it is the 'begotten God/god' being spoken about.Also, I would be in the “Jesus is the begotten God” group so please add the word 'begotten' when classifying me…ok?
Smile…I answered your question
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2011,19:37) Mike, Mike, Mike,
Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion. Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible.
Praise Jah! Two weeks I've been asking. Kathi comes back, and within ONE DAY she is able to give the ONLY POSSIBLE answer to the question!Take note D, and Keith and Jack and Mark! See how it's done?
Thanks Kathi, and I assure you that you can Google either one of these guys and view the accolades and professorships and awards, etc. that they've been given. Btw, neither of them think “a god” is the way to go. In fact, Harris opines that “a god” is contextually impossible because it would promote polytheism. Nevertheless, there is no Greek rule of grammar prohibiting “a god”, which makes it completely grammatically possible. And that is rung #1. Once these “Jesus is God” people decide to answer the same question as honestly and directly as you did, we'll start the “race to the top of the ladder”.
If they don't answer after a couple of more days, I'll just write my own essay about it, and post it.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:38) Aren't you guys reading the actual question? There is no available answer EXCEPT FOR “YES”. Because CLEARLY, ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS I QUOTED, “a god” IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, even though Harris clearly thinks that the the “a god” translation is a CONTEXTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
MikeBut that wasn't the wording of your original question was it?
This is….
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:53) Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
And we answered “NO” it is not grammatically possible, and in fact his conclusion was John 1:1c is anarthrous.
Since the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear you reworded it as your normal manner is too…Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,17:32) Mark, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO? The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
Dr. Mantey stated… “There is no statement in our “GRAMMAR” that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a “PERMISSABLE” translation in John 1:1.
Now an honest question for you Mike…
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Hopefully you will not twist my words.
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 20 2011,13:09) Murray J. Harris
“From the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV hn`o logoV could be rendered 'the Word was a god'…But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60). Harris's objection to the NWT rendering is not based on grammar, but on his theology.
– from an email dialog with the webmaster of the now-defunct Trinity Exposed Website.
The “…” in the previous quote reads: “just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, umeiV ek tou patroV tou diabolou este (John 8:44) could mean 'you belong to the father of the devil'” (Harris, p. 60). Thus, Harris demonstrates that grammatical possibilities do not yield accurate translations. He goes on to say, “it would not be impossible, from the point of view of grammar alone, to translate 1:1c as 'God was the Word'” (Harris, p. 61). Anyone reading Harris' chapter on John 1:1 will see that he favors the traditional translation (“The Word was God”) not merely on theological grounds (John's monotheism, by the way; not Harris'), but on strong grammatical and contextual grounds as well.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htmI believe Murray makes a excellent point. Its also grammtically possible to state that “God was the Word”
Can you Accept that possibility mike?
And According to the context of This persons writings, it seems that though many things are possible, its definite that to translate to “a god” would be just incorrect.
Good Post Big D.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:38) Thanks for your input. I'm aching to discuss the CONTEXTUAL possibilities, and blow you “Jesus is God” people right out of the water with Keith's own words. But I won't do it until everyone has agreed to the UNDENIABLE FACT that the Greek into English translation of John 1:1c ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY allows for the GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY of “a god”.
MikeThe beating of your chest is noted! We shall see how you are going to disprove a truth that has been taught for centuries especially when there is miles of evidence stacked against you.
Straw man doctrines can't take the heat of the “fiery” truth. You can't put out a fire with straw man arguments either!
Whats really hillarious is you actually think “MY WORDS are gonna blow the Jesus is God people out of the water.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:23) We shall see how you are going to disprove a truth that has been taught for centuries especially when there is miles of evidence stacked against you.
Taught for centuries? Sure. Miles of evidence? Not a chance. In fact, there is ZERO. Stick around Keith, you're about to learn some things finally.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:34) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:23) We shall see how you are going to disprove a truth that has been taught for centuries especially when there is miles of evidence stacked against you.
Taught for centuries? Sure. Miles of evidence? Not a chance. In fact, there is ZERO. Stick around Keith, you're about to learn some things finally.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,10:18) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 20 2011,13:09) Murray J. Harris
“From the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV hn`o logoV could be rendered 'the Word was a god'…But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60). Harris's objection to the NWT rendering is not based on grammar, but on his theology.
– from an email dialog with the webmaster of the now-defunct Trinity Exposed Website.
The “…” in the previous quote reads: “just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, umeiV ek tou patroV tou diabolou este (John 8:44) could mean 'you belong to the father of the devil'” (Harris, p. 60). Thus, Harris demonstrates that grammatical possibilities do not yield accurate translations. He goes on to say, “it would not be impossible, from the point of view of grammar alone, to translate 1:1c as 'God was the Word'” (Harris, p. 61). Anyone reading Harris' chapter on John 1:1 will see that he favors the traditional translation (“The Word was God”) not merely on theological grounds (John's monotheism, by the way; not Harris'), but on strong grammatical and contextual grounds as well.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htmI believe Murray makes a excellent point. Its also grammtically possible to state that “God was the Word”
Can you Accept that possibility mike?
And According to the context of This persons writings, it seems that though many things are possible, its definite that to translate to “a god” would be just incorrect.
Good Post Big D.WJ
Mike goes down for the full count
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2011,20:21) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,02:09) Hi Kathi!!!
I MIss you!!! i was thinking about you the other day and how we needed you back and guess what here you are!!!
Miss you bunch lady!Welcome back
Hi Dennison,
It's is nice to be missed…thank you for thinkin' me back hereBless ya,
Kathi
Hii KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
Since the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear you reworded it as your normal manner is too…
Yes Keith,That's how I have to do things with people like you. I've in fact re-worded it five different times. But the question you've finally answered TRUTHFULLY today is the one you've answered UNTRUTHFULLY already. And yet YOU have the gall to call ME dishonest for calling YOU dishonest? YOU were the one who was BEING dishonest. Thank you for finally ceasing to be mistaken instead of ceasing to be honest.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
I'll take that for now. I'll move this answer and my follow up question to the “Freak Greek” thread.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
Now an honest question for you Mike…According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Hopefully you will not twist my words.
I don't play with words and avoid questions like you do, Keith. I don't have to play games like that, for I have the truth on my side. Please list the link to where you got this quote on the “Freak Greek” thread, and after reading it in context, I'll give you an immediate and HONEST answer. (The reason is that I don't think he's saying “a god” is grammatically impossible at all, but it's hard to tell from that sentence you quoted.)See ya on the Freak Greek thread. I only brought this subject to this thread because D was afraid to venture into the other thread. I don't want to have the same discussion in three or four different threads. You understand, right?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:54) I don't play with words and avoid questions like you do, Keith. I don't have to play games like that, for I have the truth on my side. Please list the link to where you got this quote on the “Freak Greek” thread, and after reading it in context, I'll give you an immediate and HONEST answer.
What? You mean you can't answer the question based on his grammar alone?But you scolded us for not answering your question the way you wanted out of context didn't you?
WJ
First of all, I quoted the words of those scholars as they were written in the Wikipedia article I posted much stuff from. I posted all that was there.
Secondly, the sentences I quoted were complete enough to glean the answer from. Your quote seems to have your scholar explaining to someone how when he said it was POSSIBLE, there was nothing in his grammar to say he was implying it was permissible. Get it? I need to see more of his conversation or whatever.
mike
D, I'm waiting for YOUR answer of “YES”. Keith and Kathi have answered the question truthfully, will you? (I'm not worried about Jack, for he is just here as a cheerleader for Keith, and very rarely has anything of value to offer to the discussion.)
mike
Hi Mike,
Quote Quote (mikeboll64@Mar. 20 2011 @ 13:30) And to answer your question the FIRST time with the ONLY HONEST ANSWER there is………….”YES”, “THE God” is also GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE from the Greek words,
Do you see how I answered your question, D? Did I say, “IF one believes it”? You asked a DIRECT question, and I gave a DIRECT and HONEST answer, though not even the Trinni's believe in “THE God” for 1:1c. But that doesn't matter, because you didn't ask me if Trinni's believe in a “THE God” translation of 1:1c, did you? You asked if it was GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE, and since it most definitely IS, I HONESTLY ANSWERED WITH “YES”.
Thats not what I asked you. But whatever dude….Quote Now you want to know if “God was the Word” is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. ABSOULTELY, POSITIVELY YES! Again, as Kathi has pointed out, it is not LIKELY, but it is most definitely GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
That was my orginal question to begin with.Quote Again, notice how I don't answer your DIRECT question by giving “what if's” and “maybe's” and “I disagree's”. The question you asked is a YES or NO question, so I answered it with a YES or NO, didn't I? My question to you is also a YES or NO question. There is only one answer, and that answer is in green letters right above the question itself. Please answer it DIRECTLY with a YES or a NO.
Actually, you added emphasis about Kathi responses about how its “not likely” but possible.
Soo whats the Deal Yo?Quote Not a chance. Take Heb 1:8 for instance. Trinni's don't even consider any other possibilty except, “Jesus is called theos, therefore he is God Almighty”. And for them, it's cut and dry and PROVES that Jesus is God Almighty. I'm the guy saying, “Now wait just a minute here…………..first of all, being called theos isn't any claim to being God Almighty. Secondly, this particular theos has a God of his own according to 1:9. Thirdly, it's commonly accepted by trinitarian scholars that the Psalm that was quoted in 1:8 is about a human king who is called elohim in the text. So how does applying a scripture about a human king to Jesus all of a sudden make him God Almighty?”
First of All, If I say “Mike your the God” its pretty cut and dry on that point, But if you investigate and realize that “God” for Dennison actuallys means “Crap”, and Dennison Defines the word “God” as “Crap” than realize what im actualy saying is that “Mike your the Crap” (which in todays Gangsta terms would be a good thing)
So you would have to Prove that The author Defines “theos” other than “the one supreme Being”.
Second of all, You would have to prove the differences in terms unless its used Interchangably.
Third of all, Which psalms? I dont remember but i believe we already debate about this once.Quote And what have I done there, D? I have raised the POSSIBILITY that Heb 1:8 isn't quite as cut and dry as the trinni's would have liked to think. Because if it's POSSIBLE that Jesus is not really being referred to as God Almighty in 1:8, then it's no longer a PROOF text, but a MAYBE or WISHFUL THINKING text. And when you place all of your MAYBE texts up against REAL undeniable PROOF texts like the ones that tell us Jesus is not God, the the Son OF that One, then in the end, the REAL PROOF TEXTS will stand triumphant over the various MAYBE and WISHFUL THINKING texts that the trinni's have come up with throughout the years.
Thats fine, but you go SOO FAR, desperately.
For example we showed you the proof about John 10 so many times, yet you still dont get it and deny the very scriptures and the psalms thats LINKED to it. How are you so sure that your not under the influence of your OWN Wishful THinking Syndrome.Quote And you all KNOW this! And therefore you guys are hesitant to answer a direct question about an UNDENIABLE FACT of Greek grammar, because you know what your honest and direct answer will do. It will immediately raise other POSSIBILITES, which in turn will change John 1:1 from one of your “proof texts” into just another WISHFUL THINKING text.
ACtually I believe in the truth, And i dont hestitate at All, but you want a direct Answer so that later you can misqoute and use it to your advantage somehow. so ITs wise to be Prudent an Seee what your REALLY trying to do.
Where is your proof texts that Jesus is an Angel??Let me ask you a direct question
If I can Effectively prove that Jesus is not an Angel, would this mean that You are wrong, therefore a victem of your own wishfull Thinking, therefore Opening the Possibilities that Jesus IS God?Quote Here's the FACT of the matter, D. The Greek language does not have an indefinite article. Translators add that indefinite article into English translations over 1000 times in the NT alone. The AKJV has added it 8432 times in the whole Bible. It is added as context dictates. But there is NO GREEK GRAMMAR RULE whatsoever in the history of the world that would prohibit the “a” from being added into 1:1c. That is a FACT. It is UNDENIABLE and IRREFUTABLE. And once you guys are HONEST enough to ADMIT this UNDENIABLE FACT, then I will begin to show how the context DOES dictate the “a” in this case.
The Rule is based on the Context bro? Just because you COULD put it there doesnt mean, it Means the same thing.
You know nothing about Translation man.For Example:
This is called a Direct Translation
If I want to Translate “Spider Man” Into spanish It would be Grammatically possiblle as “Araña Hombre” But its Grammtically Incorrect to Translate it as such because in Spanish it wouldnt make any sense at all, becuase Spanish carries a set culture and understanding of phrases and words.Therefore we must Translate the phrase correctly.
Which means “Spider man” Translates to “El Hombre Araña” Which would be Grammtically Correct in Spanish Grammatics!
(but Spanish speakers adapt alot so culturaly we just say Spider man, but with an accent, espiderman)
Now its OBVIOUS that “El” is Added in order to make the Name make sense, but Spiderman is not called “The Spiderman” sooooo it must change in order to fit the Orginal Meaning so in spanish to english it says “The Man-Spider” see the difference?What im trying to Effectivly prove with my Example is that Translation is based on keeping the “meaning” verses keeping the “Exact grammer”. As long as it means the same thing, than its correct based on context.
But one must also realize that some THINGS CANNOT be Translated.Quote Heck, I could make my case leaving 1:1c anthrous, like it is in most translations now. But I want everyone to know and acknowledge the WHOLE truth of the matter before I destroy John 1:1 as any kind of trinitarian “proof text”. And the WHOLE truth of the matter is that there are NO Greek rules prohibiting any of the following translations: 1. the word was god
2. the word was a god
3. the word was the god
4. god was the wordSo let's all just acknowledge this FACT already, so we can move on to the CONTEXTUAL discussion.
Your soo sttuborn, you should have started with the Context. You have to burden of proof of translating it your way.
So why bother with all of this?
Look what you said??? its not a FACT!!!
ITS A POSSIBLITIY, A THEORY, A THOUGHT, A IMAGINATION, BUT NOT A FACT.
You see how you are not Consistent with your IDeas?
Thats why i find your questions loaded.Quote How so? Have I not answered your questions directly and honestly – even though I don't personally believe “THE God” to be correct in 1:1c?
I have no idea what your talking about when you mention “the god” because i never claim it sooooo….
maybe you had that discussion with someone else….
I stated how several times through out this time must i repeat myself again?Quote My questions have NO strings, and never have. They are not “loaded” questions. They are simple questions that you guys consider loaded simply because you know where a truthful answer to them will leave you.
Lol not at all, we just dont trust you because your bound to use those loaded questions somehow to your advantage by misquoting our intent.
Its a scheem dude, you think im stupid?
For example you just claimed above that this Possibility all of the sudden is now a fact? thats not Deceiving at all right?
Lol…Quote I saw neither a big bold “YES” nor a big bold “NO” in your post. One of those two is the ONLY honest and direct answer to the question. So please answer my question with one of those two words.
You know, show me where you have directly said Yes without ANY other words that come along with it, becuase you always have something else to say along with your “yes” and “no's”Quote Bingo! And although it might kill Keith, I will negate them using Keith's own words. So hurry up and answer my question so we can get to it.
You should have started that way instaed of playing games.Quote I appreciate the thought, and will consider it. I will not discourse with liars, though. Would you? I mean, what's the point? If scripture “x” contains the word “elohim” – plain as day for all to see – yet someone insists that the word “elohim” is NOT in scripture “x”, why bother? I won't debate with those who will not acknowledge very clear truths and facts. Here's a fake example: Keith says, “Mike, Dennison is really smart.”
Then Kathi says, “Jack, ACCORDING TO KEITH'S WORDS ABOVE, is Dennison really smart?”
And then Jack says, “NO! NO! NO! Because I don't personally think he's smart, therefore the answer to your question, Kathi, is NO!”
Do you get the point? The question never was if Jack thought you were smart. The question was does KEITH think you're smart. Get it? That's how MY question to you is. My question doesn't allow for what YOU PERSONALLY THINK. My question only asks you to read what two other dudes have written, and answer ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY THINK.
Actually thats not the case here.
The case here is that We have alot of misunderstandings, so therefore we must understand what we “mean” or how we “define” certain terms so that we can communicate.its solely a communication problem, As above in your example shows.
So therefore i wouldnt consider Keithe nor KJ as liars, because someone who lies is someone who purpously doesnt tell the truth.
Now you consider them liars becasue YOU believe thier truths are lies, but since they believe thier truth is truth, they are not lying but deceived.Big difference.
I personally believe your Decieved, and Deceiving yourself day and night.So There you have it folks!
In conclusion, in light of what I researched it seems to be incorrect to Translate John1:1 as “a god” but According to the these two Scholars Grammatically its possible to do so, but one must also accept its grammtically possible to translate John1:1 as “God was the Word”
Therefore if one is going to rely on possibilities, one cannot accept one and deny the other.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,05:30) D, I'm waiting for YOUR answer of “YES”. Keith and Kathi have answered the question truthfully, will you? (I'm not worried about Jack, for he is just here as a cheerleader for Keith, and very rarely has anything of value to offer to the discussion.) mike
I have answered the Question Truthfully.
You asked according to those Scholars is it possible?Welll thats what they said right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
