- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,02:41) Hi All A lie has been leveled against me by a poster simply because I do not “agree” with the varied opinions of a couple of Greek scholars who “claim” it is grammatically possible for 1:1c to be arthrous (with the indefinite article “a”).
The Greek language does not have the indefinite article [a] so the translators have to add it to a sentence to make sense of it. As a rule the translators did not add the article unless they had to because of grammar and its context.
“There isn't any Greek rules that says “if there is a lack of the “definite article” with a noun then the text should be translated “indefinite”.
Yet there are a few lonely versions of the Bible, the NWT for one, that have added [a] to the text of John 1:1c without any reason except that they say it could “grammatically” be possible.
The scholars disagree with the JWs and in fact some say it not only is not grammatically possible but even reckless as far as the JWs and their NWT.
First I want to address Mike’s sources and then give some other sources clearly showing that it is not “Grammatically” possible for the NWT to be correct.
The NWT is guilty of misquoting their sources out of context which you will see.
Mikes first source is…
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.
A look at the context reveals that Harris concluded that John 1:1c“should not” be rendered “the Word was [a] god”.
Here is M Harris comments in context, (emphasis mine)…
“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). Source
He also says..
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 kai tav epiqumiav tou patrov umwn qelete” (John 8:44) could mean 'you belong to the father of the devil'” (Harris, p. 60).
So the writer goes on to explain…
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”.
The parts I highlighted are…
…”but the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c IMPOSSIBLE” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60).
If someone thinks it is “Impossible” that the NWTs rendering of John 1:1 is correct or even could possibly be correct “grammatically” then why is it “impossible” to him to translate it that way? It is because Harris is saying “grammar” ALONE does not dictate how a verse is to be translated by his example of John 8:44. The JWs have misrepresented Harris and his words.
Mike also quotes CH Dodd …
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.”
Once again the scholar is quoted out of context for the context reads…
“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. ”The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole”(The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).
“IF the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.
From his own words he is saying that “translating” is “NOT” a matter of just substituting words or “grammar”. He says “IF IT WAS” then the NWT could be a “possible” translation. But we know that translating the scriptures is not merely grammatical without context. Grammar includes context and no Biblical Scholar would ever say that in translating the scriptures you can accurately translate them without context.
Now let’s check out some of the Scholars that tell us this very thing…
Dr. Julius R. Mantey is the Author of Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament had threatened action against the WT (Watch Tower) for misquoting him in relation to John 1:1.
In the investigative film Witnesses of Jehovah (1988 Good News Defenders, P.O. Box 8007, La Jolla, CA 92038) Dr. Mantey say’s this in the television interview:
“I have never found any so-called translation that goes so far away from what the Scripture actually teaches as these books published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. ”They are so far away from what there is in the original Hebrew and the original Greek…you can’t follow theirs because it’s biased and its deceptive because they deliberately changed words in the passage of Scripture to make it fit into their doctrine, they distorted the Scripture in many facets, scores and scores of passages in the New Testament dealing with the deity of Christ especially.” Source
Dr. Julius Mantey is adamant in his attitude toward the writings of the WTS. To read the actual letter that Mantey wrote after he learned that he was cited in the Watch Tower publications go to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm.
Here is the letter written by Julius R. Mantey, whose Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament has been quoted by various Watchtower publications in their discussions of John 1:1-2…
Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: “With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence.” Two examples occur here to illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these examples.” 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? 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: “WH
AT 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.” SourceI will post more on this with more evidence that it is “not grammatically possible” to translate John 1:1c as indefinite.
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.
Now an honest question for Mike…
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
More to come!
WJ
Greetings WJ….. Please allow me to post this analogy….The argument that is ensueing is the same as a pair of folks who just received a letter threatening murder and they are more concerned with the spelling and grammar in the note so as to prove the stupidity of the author instead of the gravity of its intent…John 1:1 is difficult enough to understand without confusing matters by sourcing multiple theories/interpretations from various interlects…Gods ways are higher then ours and anything is possible with God and that includes our limited understanding and puny interlect…
The Word was God
The word was with God
The word became flesh
The word lived among us
WJ you are not a liar,….just a fallable man as myself,trying to ferrot out the truth amongst fiction and misinformation..Theodorej said:
Quote WJ you are not a liar,….just a fallable man as myself,trying to ferrot out the truth amongst fiction and misinformation..
Tj,Though I am convinced that WJ correctly undertsands John 1:1c you are right on the money in your attitude. For a moderator to insinuate a man is a 'liar' instead of giving hte benefit that he is just fallible shows the meanness of the spirit of that moderator. It shows also that that moderator is not qualified to be a moderator.
The irony is that the moderator claims that he worships the true God but then slanders a man made in God's image.
blessings,
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,10:17) The irony is that the moderator claims that he worships the true God but then slanders a man made in God's image.
Thank God you've never slandered anyone on this site, Jack!
Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,11:36) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,10:17) The irony is that the moderator claims that he worships the true God but then slanders a man made in God's image.
Thank God you've never slandered anyone on this site, Jack! Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
mike
Why Create another catagory? Why not just leave it in the hot seat section?WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,03:36) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,10:17) The irony is that the moderator claims that he worships the true God but then slanders a man made in God's image.
Thank God you've never slandered anyone on this site, Jack! Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
mike
CHILDISH CRAP!
Quote (theodorej @ Mar. 29 2011,10:53) WJ you are not a liar,….just a fallable man as myself,trying to ferrot out the truth amongst fiction and misinformation..
Thanks TheodoreHopefully Mike will see from someone like yourself that is not a Trinitarian and are on the outside of these debates that his calling me a liar is not only wrong but should not be allowed on this sight unless there is absolute proof that one is lying.
There is a lot of ambiguity in debate and lots of room for misunderstanding and emotional bias happens all the time.
Thanks again, you have a good Spirit my friend.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,11:36) Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
Really Mike? Then what is this that you said to me if it is not slander?….Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:46) “You, on the other hand are a coward———-> How stupid, man. It says alot about you and what your goals are———-> COWARD.” Found here
WJQuote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2011,06:02) Quote (theodorej @ Mar. 29 2011,10:53) WJ you are not a liar,….just a fallable man as myself,trying to ferrot out the truth amongst fiction and misinformation..
Thanks TheodoreHopefully Mike will see from someone like yourself that is not a Trinitarian and are on the outside of these debates that his calling me a liar is not only wrong but should not be allowed on this sight unless there is absolute proof that one is lying.
There is a lot of ambiguity in debate and lots of room for misunderstanding and emotional bias happens all the time.
Thanks again, you have a good Spirit my friend.
WJ
Keith,I second your point about debate having a lot of misunderstanding and emotional bias. I second also that Tj has a good spirit and that Mr. Moderator should take the example from his non-trinitarian elder.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2011,06:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,11:36) Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
Really Mike? Then what is this that you said to me if it is not slander?….Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:46) “You, on the other hand are a coward———-> How stupid, man. It says alot about you and what your goals are———-> COWARD.” Found here
WJ
Keith,I was really offended when I first saw that one. Mike seems to have no conscience and t8 seems to be without resolve.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,14:17) Keith, Did you notice that the votes are now 6-3 in our favor?
Jack
YesPeople can see through this “Hitler” attempt at silencing others and forcing them to speak or not to speak.
But like I said to Mike, bring it on. We can go into their arena and fight by their rules.
Afraid?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2011,06:47) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,14:17) Keith, Did you notice that the votes are now 6-3 in our favor?
Jack
YesPeople can see through this “Hitler” attempt at silencing others and forcing them to speak or not to speak.
But like I said to Mike, bring it on. We can go into their arena and fight by their rules.
Afraid?
WJ
Keith,Not me man! I don't have that kind of time. I view myself as a VOLUNTEER here who donates his time to a charity.
I know what's going on with Mike. I used to get annoyed when people would ignore my points and it would make me feel unimportant. This is what is happening with Mike so he is trying to force people to give him the attention he thinks he deserves.
Like the spoiled little rich kid Mike is trying to get his daddy t8 to give him what he wants.
If Mike has in fact made good points that go unanswered, then the reading audience will know if someone is running and hiding. Mike should just be secure in the best he has done and leave the results with God. Instead he is trying to force people to give him attention.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,13:02) Hopefully Mike will see from someone like yourself that is not a Trinitarian and are on the outside of these debates that his calling me a liar is not only wrong but should not be allowed on this sight unless there is absolute proof that one is lying.
Keith,Should I post the question and put it to a vote whether or not you were lying? How about the 1 Cor 8:6 question you lied about today?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,12:49) Why Create another catagory? Why not just leave it in the hot seat section?
The category I propose will be one question in the spotlight. Only the one who is scared to answer the question will be able to respond on that thread. There will be no chance of you hiding your diversions amongst the hundreds of other diversion posts from your cheerleaders. That's why.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,13:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,11:36) Besides, a slander implies speaking FALSELY about someone else. I didn't do that, as you will soon find out if t8 implements the “Final Showdown” category.
Really Mike? Then what is this that you said to me if it is not slander?….Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:46) “You, on the other hand are a coward———-> How stupid, man. It says alot about you and what your goals are———-> COWARD.” Found here
WJ
Truth.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,13:47) But like I said to Mike, bring it on. We can go into their arena and fight by their rules.
Oh, I didn't see that post apparently. It's on, dude. Look for the first “Final Showdown”.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,15:40) If Mike has in fact made good points that go unanswered, then the reading audience will know if someone is running and hiding. Mike should just be secure in the best he has done and leave the results with God. Instead he is trying to force people to give him attention.
Jack,You give me more attention than I ever wanted from you. So that's not it. But your words above sound like words spoken from a coward who IS afraid to be called to account.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
