- This topic is empty.
- Posts
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
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,09:16) 4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE
Keith,Your post is senseless. It's like me saying that since the Trinitarian scholars say Herod had the voice of “A god”, then they should use “A god” ever time “god” is mentioned.
Do you see how lame these arguments are?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,09:38) 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 ”CAPITALIZED” 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
Keith, Do you realize that both “capitalise” and “capitalize” are acceptable? Same with “baptise” and “baptize”.Ask Karmarie or JA. They also use an “s” in many words the American's generally use a “z” for.
mike
Mike
I see that but the definitions are different for “CAPITALISE” and “CAPITALIZE”, but I stand corrected.
However he still had a grammatical error. I thought I would be just as lame as he was for calling KJ out.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,16:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,09:16) 4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE
Keith,Your post is senseless. It's like me saying that since the Trinitarian scholars say Herod had the voice of “A god”, then they should use “A god” ever time “god” is mentioned.
Do you see how lame these arguments are?
mike
MikeNo Mike. The point is the JWs were deceptive in their use of the scholars materials and quotes.
Just because you say something is useless doesn't mean it is Mike.
This is just more of your scorn for those who know far more than you do.
WJ
We all make grammatical errors here. But just as it was funny the time Jack pointed out JA's misspelling of “intelligence” when he was slamming MY lack of it, it was also funny this time because of Jack's post that t8 commented on.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:43) When are you going to answer my questions MIke? WJ
Are you kidding me? Which question haven't I answered?mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:40) No Mike. The point is the JWs were deceptive in their use of the scholars materials and quotes.
Keith,If a scholar like Murray Harris clearly states that “a god cannot be faulted”, then it is not my job to also include the part where he says he doesn't like that translation. Same goes for the JW's. If the grammatical fact is that it IS possible, then who really cares that as a Trinitarian, Mr. Harris doesn't PREFER that translation? Of course he doesn't, he's a Trinitarian. The job Satan has delegated to him is to spin any and every scripture he can to make them seem like they're teaching Jesus is God. Then people can worship Jesus as God, causing even more people to lose out on everlasting life because they can't seem to follow the direct orders of both God and His Son.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,17:44) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,16:43) When are you going to answer my questions MIke? WJ
Are you kidding me? Which question haven't I answered?mike
MikeAre you kidding me?
Ok here are all of them…
Dr. Mantey stated… “There is no statement in our “GRAMMAR” that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
A.T. Robertson a world renowned Greek Grammarian states…
“So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos ”THE MEANING HAS TO BE THE LOGOS WAS GOD, not God was the Logos.” A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 129.
According to Dr Robertson can John 1:1c grammatically be translated [a] god?
F.F. Bruce a Professor at the University of Manchester, England and has authored a New Testament translation states…
“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase “And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.” Source
According to Dr Bruce is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was [a] god”?
W. E. Vine writes…
“'and the Word was God'; here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, “a god was the Word,' is entirely misleading” (Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, “God”, p. 272).
According to W.E. Vine is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was [a] God?
B.F. Westcott writes…
It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theos”. “No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of the expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word” Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ v. 27 (hoti hious anthropou estin…).'” (Moule, p. 116, emphasis added). Source
According to B.F. Westcort is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as (inferior in nature) as [a] little god?
And this is the big one Mike….
According to the testimony of the scholars is it grammatically “correct” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,17:49) If the grammatical fact is that it IS possible, then who really cares that as a Trinitarian, Mr. Harris doesn't PREFER that translation?
MikeOh I see, so even if their final conclusion is the “correct” translation would be anarthrous (without the article) then you still don't care and reject the rest of their works or writings?
So you just reject all the rest and call them idiots, stupid and bias because thier conclusion does not agree with your doctrine even though their conclusion is the right and correct conclusion?
You should sell all you have and give it to the JWs and follow “Watchtower” Mike.
It is amazing to me that you try and force us to accept something a scholar says while you on the other hand “reject” practically everything they say. That is hypocritical to me.
WJ
No Keith,
I acknowledge that they are entitled to THEIR OWN OPINIONS, just as you and I are. I'm trying to show that their OPINIONS are based on falsehoods and not scriptures. I'm doing that in the “Freak Greek” thread right now. Join in if you like.
Remember, “CORRECT” is not the same as “POSSIBLE”. “CORRECT” is a matter of OPINION.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:02) Remember, “CORRECT” is not the same as “POSSIBLE”. “CORRECT” is a matter of OPINION.
Tell me Mike how it can be “grammatically possible” for an honest man to translate the scripture “incorrectly”?WJ
To all,
Worshiping Jesus wrote:
Quote A.T. Robertson a world renowned Greek Grammarian states…
“So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos ”THE MEANING HAS TO BE THE LOGOS WAS GOD, not God was the Logos.” A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 129.
This in confused me at first as I thought Mr. Robertson was saying ”THE MEANING HAS TO BE THE LOGOS IS GOD, not God is the Logos.” which is just a question of word arrangement. “was” is a past tense word so he seems to be stating the meaning has to be “the meaning has to be The Logos in the past was God not God in the past was the Logos.
Actually the relationship is still confusing but this is not the forum to discuss interpretations of scriptures. I think I will look into the matter more in the scripture/biblical forum at a later time God willing.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:02) I acknowledge that they are entitled to THEIR OWN OPINIONS, just as you and I are. I'm trying to show that their OPINIONS are based on falsehoods and not scriptures.
What you have acknowledged is you think you know more than 1000s of Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars by accusing them of bias and teaching falsehoods.Who are you to accuse them when you know very little of what they know.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,17:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:02) Remember, “CORRECT” is not the same as “POSSIBLE”. “CORRECT” is a matter of OPINION.
Tell me Mike how it can be “grammatically possible” for an honest man to translate the scripture “incorrectly”?WJ
Who's to say the “a” is the “incorrect” way? That's what I'm trying to get to the bottem of in the Freak Greek thread.We have all read your scholar's OPINIONS on the matter, AND the bases for those opinions. Let's examime if those “bases” are even founded on scripture………….in the Freak Greek thread.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,17:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:02) I acknowledge that they are entitled to THEIR OWN OPINIONS, just as you and I are. I'm trying to show that their OPINIONS are based on falsehoods and not scriptures.
What you have acknowledged is you think you know more than 1000s of Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars by accusing them of bias and teaching falsehoods.Who are you to accuse them when you know very little of what they know.
WJ
Thanks to the Internet, I have access to everything they have access to. Keith, why are you bucking? If they are all “correct”, then that will become clear in the Freak Greek thread. Get over there and let's see, okay?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,17:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2011,18:02) Remember, “CORRECT” is not the same as “POSSIBLE”. “CORRECT” is a matter of OPINION.
Tell me Mike how it can be “grammatically possible” for an honest man to translate the scripture “incorrectly”?WJ
Who's to say the “a” is the “incorrect” way? That's what I'm trying to get to the bottem of in the Freak Greek thread.We have all read your scholar's OPINIONS on the matter, AND the bases for those opinions. Let's examime if those “bases” are even founded on scripture………….in the Freak Greek thread.
mike
Okay MikeI will reword the quesiton…
“According to the Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars is [a] god a “grammatically correct possiblity?”
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 26 2011,17:29) I will reword the quesiton… “According to the Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars is [a] god a “grammatically correct possiblity?”
Keith,Just give it up. Grammatically possible and “correct” are two different things. One can be proven, the other calls for opinion.
I'm done with this thread. Talk to me in the Freak Greek thread. I'm tired of discussing the same things in 3 or 4 different threads.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
