- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:14) 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.
DennisonExcellent points!
BTW, I really don't get “roo fever” (whatever that is) though I see nothing wrong with KJ except that we disagree sometimes, who doesn't? WJ
Kathi said:
Quote 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.Mike replied:
Quote 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?
Kathy,You need to visit the thread WJ started yesterday. The scholars Mike invoked do not really say that it is grammatically possible. Keith shows that Mike misread the scholars. As an example Mike said:
Quote 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. 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.”
Keith, 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?
Keith has shown that Mike misread the trinitarian scholars but Mike is accusing us of misreading his question. I have learned how to read between the lines when dealing with Mike. Again, when reading those scholars IN CONTEXT they do not admit that it is a grammatical possibility.See Keith's posts at https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3807
This all started when I exposed Mike's freak Greek on the “freak Greek” thread in my very first post. He is still reeling from that and has used this “grammatical possibility” thing as a diversion. He has needed to create ambiguity to draw attention away from his major blunder regarding John 1:1c and 8:44.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3794
Please note in the op to that thread that I exposed Mike's blunder. His first reply did not answer his blunder. His first reply was a diversion into “grammatical possibilities.” He has gone non-stop with this diversion since.
Jack
Mike said:
Quote (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.)
Yet Mike created the “grammatical possibilities” thing as a diversion after I exposed his major blunder regarding John 1:1c and 8:44. He never replied to his blunder but started with the “possibilities” diversion right off the bat.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,19:46) 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?
No, becasue the New comer smells like “martian” by saying that “The Word” is the thoughts of God in John 1:1.Is that you “martian”?
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,13:05) Mike said: Quote (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.)
Yet Mike created the “grammatical possibilities” thing as a diversion after I exposed his major blunder regarding John 1:1c and 8:44. He never replied to his blunder but started with the “possibilities” diversion right off the bat.
JackThanks for being a “cheer leader” LOL. I have learned a lot from you bro.
Its ok though because truthfully you, Dennison and I are cheering for the truth and it is the truth that has set us free!
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,00:14)
According to the these two Scholars Grammatically its possible to [translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”]
Thank you.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,00:14)
we just dont trust you because your bound to use those loaded questions somehow to your advantage by misquoting our intent.
Honesty is the best policy, D. Always let your “yes” mean “yes” and your “no” mean “no”, like Jesus taught, and you'll never go wrong.If you're answering TRUTHFULLY, then there is nothing I can do later to make your truth a lie. For example, the way I posted your answer above is not a lie. It is, after all, the answer you finally gave to my question, is it not?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,12:59) Kathi said: Quote 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.Mike replied:
Quote 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?
Kathy,You need to visit the thread WJ started yesterday. The scholars Mike invoked do not really say that it is grammatically possible. Keith shows that Mike misread the scholars. As an example Mike said:
Quote 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. 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.”
Keith, 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?
Keith has shown that Mike misread the trinitarian scholars but Mike is accusing us of misreading his question. I have learned how to read between the lines when dealing with Mike. Again, when reading those scholars IN CONTEXT they do not admit that it is a grammatical possibility.See Keith's posts at https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3807
This all started when I exposed Mike's freak Greek on the “freak Greek” thread in my very first post. He is still reeling from that and has used this “grammatical possibility” thing as a diversion. He has needed to create ambiguity to draw attention away from his major blunder regarding John 1:1c and 8:44.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3794
Please note in the op to that thread that I exposed Mike's blunder. His first reply did not answer his blunder. His first reply was a diversion into “grammatical possibilities.” He has gone non-stop with this diversion since.
Jack
Hi Roo,
Thanks for filling me in. I am working on not taking sides or being someone's cheerleader or stirring up the drama. I do want to encourage when appropriate and not in a way as to instigate a division at the same time. We all have something to add and it helps to pass around the 'salt' shaker to help make what we add go down easier…ya know? Let's sharpen each other and then we all win!!Guys,
I would ask ya'll to consider getting off 'muscle beach' and stop flexing your 'guns' against each other and find a humbler way to demonstrate your 2 bits of info that you believe you have to further the kingdom of God. That's to be our focus, right?Just think about it…ok?
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,22:14) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:14) 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.
DennisonExcellent points!
BTW, I really don't get “roo fever” (whatever that is) though I see nothing wrong with KJ except that we disagree sometimes, who doesn't? WJ
WJ,
Eh true I guesss. I think sometimes you can be rough around the edges but Sometimes you have to admit KJ goes a bit farrr….Anyways, Who am i to talk? Im openly rude.
HahaQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,06:28) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,00:14)
According to the these two Scholars Grammatically its possible to [translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”]
Thank you.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,00:14)
we just dont trust you because your bound to use those loaded questions somehow to your advantage by misquoting our intent.
Honesty is the best policy, D. Always let your “yes” mean “yes” and your “no” mean “no”, like Jesus taught, and you'll never go wrong.If you're answering TRUTHFULLY, then there is nothing I can do later to make your truth a lie. For example, the way I posted your answer above is not a lie. It is, after all, the answer you finally gave to my question, is it not?
mike
Mike,you see what am i suppose to think here?
I made a long post in direct response to yours, and you didnt answer ANY of my questions.This is bogus, this is why i hate discussin with you because You dont follow your own rules.
If you want to discuss with me, come to the Freak Greek thread. Or take up the debate where Francis left off. I chased you down to ask ONE SIMPLE QUESTION of you. After a couple of weeks, you FINALLY answered it. If you have ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to ask of me, then go for it.
mike
My name is Anastasia and I am taking over this account.
On the third commandment;
If you are not using “God” and “Lord” with reverence and fear, then it is taking God's name in vain.
The hypocrite uses the name of the Lord in vain because he is dressing his evil thoughts with the mantle of God's name.
The Pharisee of the parable, for instance, used the name of God with a loud voice and raised his hands and eyes, but in vain. His intent was to gain arrogant personal satisfaction rather than to present a devoted prayer in repentance and humbleness!
THINK about it.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2011,07:42) If you want to discuss with me, come to the Freak Greek thread. Or take up the debate where Francis left off. I chased you down to ask ONE SIMPLE QUESTION of you. After a couple of weeks, you FINALLY answered it. If you have ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to ask of me, then go for it. mike
THats not the point mike
The point is that you made several claims, and I responded.
I even gave you proof about Translations in Spanish as an example for my claims.You just ignored it and wasted my time.
Do you see that?
You can at least Acknowledge that you read it, and make a small commment, and if u dont wish to continue to point, just SAY SO, like “thats nice, dennison, i disagree but i dont have time to respond”Whatever,
I dont like wasting my time making a post, while you choose to ignore anything you want at any given time.That bogus,
I dont want your boogers, take them back and put it back where it came from, which is from your old rusty nose, that you cant see past from.Welcome Anastasia! Good to see another Woman on HN. Even though to take God's name in vain, His name is not used today, since God is a title, most just say God. In our Rye Study Bible's footnotes it says that the Translators used LORD and Lord instate of their names, because they were afraid to use God's name in vain….And in Ancient times many were called God. Jesus too is called God, even though He is the Son of God. I look at God as a Family name…..
Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Peace and love Irene
Hi Kerwin,
Quote Strongs H430 'elohiym el-o-heem'
plural of H433;
gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative.
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Quote Strongs G2316 theos theh'-os
of uncertain affinity;
a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.
KJV: X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).
Quote Strongs G3588 ho ho, including the feminine he hay, and the neuter to to
in all their inflections;
the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom).
KJV: the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.
Hope this info helps.
With Love and Respect,
WispringWispring,
I am hoping that people will realize they disagree over a debatable issue as God can be used to refer to anyone in the unity of the Spirit of God. In a different context it can also be used to those who seek to unsurp the role of God, i.e. god of this world, false gods.
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 25 2011,15:53) singing to choir Kerwin . With Love and Respect,
Wispring
That is good to hear as many seem to ignore my words on this subject.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 25 2011,00:08) and if u dont wish to continue to point, just SAY SO, like “thats nice, dennison, i disagree but i dont have time to respond”
Yeah, what he said.If you have ONE question, or ONE point you think was important, then bring it up. But your posts are very wordy, and mostly filled with nonsense and your personal feelings, whether or not they are scripturally supported.
Dennison, I asked you about the words of two Greek scholars. I had to post many things for a couple of weeks just to get you to answer that ONE simple question. You finally answered, and I got what I wanted. Now, if there is something YOU want, ask it in ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
