- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ, it is neither.
John 1:1c does not have a definite article before the last mention of theos.
Both your options have the definite article.
You capitalised “God” in the second option. Scholars captilise rather than use the definite article in such instances.
Your first example is capitalised and so is your second.
So your second option really says what the first says.“…the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] THE theos.”.
Although putting an indefinite article next to a definite is not logical either, in Greek there in no indefinite, thus both options are really exactly the same and both are wrong.
Because neither option is correct it is not worth voting in this poll as your vote will can only be technically wrong.
The only thing that can derived from this poll is that you have little understanding of John 1:1c. Yes I know this is blunt, but I believe you shouldn't teach on this subject as it is above your understanding and you will only spread confusion and error regarding what it means. This being a perfect example for all to see.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2011,03:49) WJ, it is neither. John 1:1c does not have a definite article before the last mention of theos.
Both your options have the definite article.
You capitalised “God” in the second option. Scholars captilise rather than use the definite article in such instances.
Your first example is capitalised and so is your second.
So your second option really says what the first says.“…the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] THE theos.”.
Although putting an indefinite article next to a definite is not logical either, in Greek there in no indefinite, thus both options are really exactly the same and both are wrong.
Because neither option is correct it is not worth voting in this poll as your vote will can only be technically wrong.
The only thing that can derived from this poll is that you have little understanding of John 1:1c. Yes I know this is blunt, but I believe you shouldn't teach on this subject as it is above your understanding and you will only spread confusion and error regarding what it means. This being a perfect example for all to see.
No t8You have passed false judgment again. You are correct about my mistake in capitolizing God in the second option other than that the poll is correct because there is only 1 option that is correct.
Can you fix the [G]?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,21:03) Keith, Keith, Keith, You are so precious.
First, you ask a question yesterday. I say, “Show me the source”. Then you post the source only today, and before I've even logged on to HN, you're bullying me for an answer!
Give me a chance to read your first post before you go off on a tangent, okay?
What are you talking about Mike.Check the date stamp of my post. I didn't “ADD” anything to this thread. you posted here yesterday and the source was on the first page.
Man you are getting old!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,21:03) As for your scholary quote, you have quoted what this man has said to the Watchtower, not what his book on Greek grammar said. Apparently, what his book says was good enough for the JW's to say, “SEE? This Greek scholar admits “a god” is grammatically possible”. And he is telling them that he wasn't implying “a god” was a permissable translation. But that means he wasn't specifically implying it was NOT a permissable translation either. Face it, if he had said something to that effect, I doubt the JW's would have quoted him as support in the first place, right?
Wrong MikeThis is total Spin.
He was going to sue the JWs and that is why he sent the letter in the first place.
His words are pretty clear…
“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
You are wrong about it being English grammar for he clarifies it by saying…
But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, “as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos. “And isn't that the opposite of what your translation “a god” infers?
So the JWs misrepresented him completely and he continues to explain the Grammar…
You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) IN OUR GRAMMAR WE STATED: “WITHOUT THE ARTICLE THEOS SIGNIFIES DIVINE ESSENCE…THEOS EN HO LOGOS EMPHASIZES CHRIST'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE.” OUR INTERPRETATION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT IN NEB AND THE TED: “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”; AND WITH THAT OF BARCLAY: “THE NATURE OF THE WORD WAS THE SAME AS THE NATURE OF GOD,” WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER TO CARIS.”
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,21:03) Anyway, you haven't posted the actual words from his book about John 1:1. Do that, and then ask the question. Because he's definitely not telling the JW's it's IMPOSSIBLE, and apparently his book said something they liked in the first place.
MikeThe words I posted were his actual words.
If to him it is not permissable then it is not possible you do get that don't you?
So why don't you man up and answer the question Mike?
Thats okay forget it. All can see your dancing and evasiveness.
Don't ever accuse me of not answering questions again Mike.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,21:03) The “GRAMMAR” he refers to in this quote is the ENGLISH GRAMMAR he himself used in his book, and has nothing to do with the Greek grammar of John 1:1.
Man you are desperate because you are making things up now.The “grammar” that he is talking about is his “Greek Grammar” that he discusses in his book…
“A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament”
WJ
Hi ALL
The following is an excerpt taken from the statement Mantey wrote in response to the Society’s translation:
“Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement. The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, ‘the Word was deity.’ Moffatt’s rendering is ‘the Word was divine.’ William’s translation is, ‘the Word was God Himself.’ Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have.…And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part?”—“A Grossly Misleading Translation,” pp. 1-2
As is clearly evident, the scholarly community does not endorse the assertions of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Source
See that Mike…
…our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
The translation suggested in our Grammar…
WJ
Hey Mike
I have another question for you.
According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?
If it is not “grammatically correct” then how can it be grammatically possible? Surely you can do better than just one mans testimony.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2011,02:44) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,05:26) “Arain AMATEUR grammarians” 
Look a spelling mistake. 
Keith,
Last time, dude: WHEN you have ONE scholar that says “a god” is a complete grammatical impossibility, then you only need find TWO MORE to catch up to me.
Show me Dr Mantley's actual teaching on 1:1 from his book. You know, the quote that the JW's apparently thought supported them. After reading what he wrote about John 1:1, and not what he wrote to the Watchtower, I'll be able to answer. Right now, Dr. Mantly has said nothing to imply a grammatically impossibility of “a god”. Nor has any of your scholars. And grammatically “correct” is based on OPINION of that particuar scholar. I'm waiting for a set in stone rule of Greek-to-English grammar that absolutely would PROHIBIT the addition of “a” in 1:1c.
Keith, there is none, so give it up.
mike
To all,
I have no opinion on this matter as I see no real difference between saying the Word is God and the Word is Elohim.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,20:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,21:03) Keith, Keith, Keith, You are so precious.
First, you ask a question yesterday. I say, “Show me the source”. Then you post the source only today, and before I've even logged on to HN, you're bullying me for an answer!
Give me a chance to read your first post before you go off on a tangent, okay?
What are you talking about Mike.Check the date stamp of my post. I didn't “ADD” anything to this thread. you posted here yesterday and the source was on the first page.
Man you are getting old!
WJ
HAHAHAHAH
AMNESIAAA!!!! Wow Mike,
I liked how you ignored all of Kieths postings??You see your right, you dont lie, you just runaway and hope everyone forgets abotu what you DIDNt ANSWER or AVOIDED
You cherry pick what you FEEL like answering.Your the old version of that kid who crys wolf
Bump to the dude that said…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Hey MikeI have another question for you.
According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?
If it is not “grammatically correct” then how can it be grammatically possible? Surely you can do better than just one mans testimony.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,10:12) Bump to the dude that said… Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Hey MikeI have another question for you.
According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?
If it is not “grammatically correct” then how can it be grammatically possible? Surely you can do better than just one mans testimony.
WJ
WJit show you how confused the scholars can be influence ,by there own believes and the power in witch they live,
just as the pharisees and the Sadducees in Jesus time
“if we say this then that ;if we say that then this;;….Pierre
Hi All
4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE
1. IS SATAN JEHOVAH? HE IS CALLED “THE GOD” AT 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4: “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.…”—New World Translation Doesn’t this passage undermine the Society’s rule concerning the definite article (the) being used to designate the true God from lesser “gods”?
2. JEHOVAH IS ALSO CALLED “A GOD” AT LUKE 20:37-38: “…when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”—New World Translation Since the term “God” is used of Jehovah without the definite article, doesn’t this discredit the Society’s claim that Jesus is not the true God because the term “God” is used in reference to Christ without the definite article?
3. CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION: If one is consistent in applying the Society’s rule of inserting the article “a” whenever the definite article (the) is not written in the Greek, the following verses would read this way:
· JOHN 1:6:“There came a man, sent from a God.…”
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen a God at any time.…”
· MATTHEW 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of a God.”4. SCRIPTURE CALLS JESUS “THE GOD” WHICH INDICATES HE IS JEHOVAH:
· MATTHEW 1:23: “Look! The virgin…will give birth to son, and they will call the name of him Immanuel; which is being translated With us the God.” —Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 20:28: “Answered Thomas and he said to him The Lord of me and the God of me!”—Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
· 1 JOHN 5:20; 1:2: “…we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…”
· HEBREWS 1:8: “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His Kingdom.’ SourceEnjoy!
WJ
LOOK——————->
3 spelling mistakes and one grammatical error………………………>
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2011,03:49) WJ, it is neither. John 1:1c does not have a definite article before the last mention of theos.
Both your options have the definite article.
You ”CAPITALISED” “God” in the second option. Scholars ”CAPTILISE” rather than use the definite article in such instances.
Your first example is ”CAPITALISED” and so is your second.
So your second option really says what the first says.“…the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] THE theos.”.
Although putting an indefinite article next to a definite is not logical either, in Greek there in no indefinite, thus both options are really exactly the same and both are wrong.
Because neither option is correct it is not worth voting in this poll as your vote will can only be technically wrong.
“The only thing that can derived” from this poll is that you have little understanding of John 1:1c. Yes I know this is blunt, but I believe you shouldn't teach on this subject as it is above your understanding and you will only spread confusion and error regarding what it means. This being a perfect example for all to see.
And you had the nerve to laugh at KJ?
Are you smoking something?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,10:12) Bump to the dude that said… Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
Jack, I have never:
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
Hey MikeI have another question for you.
According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?
If it is not “grammatically correct” then how can it be grammatically possible? Surely you can do better than just one mans testimony.
WJ
Keith and D,I haven't failed to answer anything. I saw no source listed in the OP………..so sorry for that. After you listed the source, I gave you my answer. As far as all the others you quoted, not one of them says “a god” is grammatically impossible, so what's your point? I've told you repeatedly that when you find a scholar that DOES say it's grammatically impossible, then you only have to find two more to be where I'm at right now.
As far as this question, “possible” and “correct” are two completely different things, Keith.
Is it POSSIBLE BEHAVIOR for someone to walk up and punch another person in the face because they don't like the shoes that person is wearing? Of course it is. Is it CORRECT BEHAVIOR? That one is up to OPINION. Most would probably say “NO”, but there are some who would say “YES”.
Get it? “Possible” and “correct” are two different things. Correctness is derived from a person's OPINION.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
