- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,10:15) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,15:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Excellent Kathy!
Excellent!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,13:55) Well, okay. Deborah was begotten BY SOMEONE and she was an elohim. But yes, Jesus is the only god begotten by THE God because Jesus is the only thing period begotten by God.Either way, it still makes him A god who was with THE God in the beginning. Am I wrong?
mike
Oh my Lord what sheer nonsense Mike! Deborah was begotten as a child as Kathi has said. She was APPOINTED a god (ruler) later in her life.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,06:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,13:55) Well, okay. Deborah was begotten BY SOMEONE and she was an elohim. But yes, Jesus is the only god begotten by THE God because Jesus is the only thing period begotten by God.Either way, it still makes him A god who was with THE God in the beginning. Am I wrong?
mike
Oh my Lord what sheer nonsense Mike! Deborah was begotten as a child as Kathi has said. She was APPOINTED a god (ruler) later in her life.
I meant to say that Deborah was appointed a god (JUDGE) later in her life.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,09:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
Like I said in the other thread, “WHO ARE YOU?” You are not skilled enough in the Greek language to discredit these three experts who say it IS grammatically possible. And it doesn't really matter how many trinni's you post that say they don't like the “a god” translation. When you find one that strictly prohibits the “a god” based on NOTHING EXCEPT Greek and English grammar, let me know. Because the “monotheistic” argument is as weak as it gets. If that is the case, we better throw out John 10:35, 2 Cor 4:4, and many other scriptures.My facts are straight. It is YOU who needs to get yourself aligned with the undeniable truth of the matter. Or not. It's really up to you.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:41) My facts are straight. It is YOU who needs to get yourself aligned with the undeniable truth of the matter. Or not. It's really up to you.
Ha Ha MikeIs your scholar better than mine? I have given you facts that a scholar disagrees with yours, but what is so bad is how you keep holding on when “ALL” of the Scholars final conclusion is against you and the NWT, that is the facts.
So it is up to you to find some evidence that there is a good reason for John 1:1c to be arthrous, and that you can't find.
Face the facts Mike, you have still proven nothing.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,22:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Okay, let's do that Kathi.But in order for it to work, there has to be only one man in existence who can be called “THE man”. So let's make 1:1 about Adam and Cain, and just forget Eve for a minute.
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with THE MAN, and Cain was man.”
From this statement, we know that THE MAN is Adam. We know that Cain was WITH Adam, and therefore can't BE Adam. We know that since Cain was also of mankind, he was much LIKE Adam, but not EXACTLY EQUAL to Adam. For example, Adam was OLDER. Adam has a son, while Cain does not. Cain has a human father, while Adam does not. Adam is more experienced, stronger, and wiser than Cain. Etc, etc, etc. So the “Jesus was EVERYTHING that God was” claim does not work at all.
But I've got one simple question for you to answer HONESTLY:
Knowing that Cain was A man who wasn't THE man, would it hurt the translation or change the meaning of it in any way at all to add the indefinite article so it said, “and Cain was a man”?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,17:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:41) My facts are straight. It is YOU who needs to get yourself aligned with the undeniable truth of the matter. Or not. It's really up to you.
Ha Ha MikeIs your scholar better than mine? I have given you facts that a scholar disagrees with yours, but what is so bad is how you keep holding on when “ALL” of the Scholars final conclusion is against you and the NWT, that is the facts.
So it is up to you to find some evidence that there is a good reason for John 1:1c to be arthrous, and that you can't find.
Face the facts Mike, you have still proven nothing.
WJ
Keith, Keith, Keith……………First of all, you don't even HAVE a scholar that says “a god” is a “grammatical IMPOSSIBILITY”. I have THREE of them with loads and loads of accolades and professorships and awards, and who have all been published because of their expertise in the Koine Greek language, saying it IS grammatically possible. They aren't mincing words or saying things unclearly. They are point blank saying that “a god” CANNOT BE FAULTED because it IS POSSIBLE.
Secondly, I haven't really even looked. I Googled John 1:1, went to Wikipedia, and quoted the only three scholars that were listed there as saying “a god” is grammatically possible.
So I'll tell you what, when you find YOUR FIRST scholar that not only says CLEARLY and WITHOUT MINCING WORDS that “a god” is a grammatical impossibility, but also lists very clearly the Greek or English rule of grammar that is SET IN STONE and ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS “a god” in 1:1c, then keep looking. Because you'll need two more of the same to even be EQUAL to what I have already.
And if you ever do get to that point, then I'LL start looking for more.
As far as my reasons, just keep paying attention to the thread.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:41) When you find one that strictly prohibits the “a god” based on NOTHING EXCEPT Greek and English grammar, let me know. Look around Mike…Greek grammar doesn't include [a].
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,19:07) I have THREE of them with loads and loads of accolades and professorships and awards, and who have all been published because of their expertise in the Koine Greek language, saying it IS grammatically possible.
Really? You are not being deceptive again are you Mike?Show me where you have “Three” that use the words It is grammatically possible to be translated as [a] god.
Exageration borders on lying Mike.
WJ
Bye Keith. I'm off the scholars now and on to the “reasons”. Let me know when you find a scholar who says it is grammatically impossible and lists the clear cut and accepted reason for this impossibility. Until then, drop the “scholar” subject, because I have proved my point.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,11:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:41) When you find one that strictly prohibits the “a god” based on NOTHING EXCEPT Greek and English grammar, let me know. Look around Mike…Greek grammar doesn't include [a].
WJ
I'm just sayin'. Bingo! Peace Hi WJ,
Quote Look around Mike… Greek grammar doesn't include [a].
WJ
What was the debate-based reason for this post? The reason I ask is that it has been shown in these threads that this is true and that the insertion of the 'a' in the translation process is up to the translators discernment. It seems to my mind that you are trying to circle the debate process back to this issue which has already been resolved.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,09:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Duece!!!!!!!!!
My ol'lady say , Itz don madder any “a” o “the” She say yo al U ned iz Gawd!
Lol Dennison, son, very cute but the next time you call me 'ol'lady'…I'll be sendin' a note home to 'yo mamma'Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:54) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,22:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Okay, let's do that Kathi.But in order for it to work, there has to be only one man in existence who can be called “THE man”. So let's make 1:1 about Adam and Cain, and just forget Eve for a minute.
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with THE MAN, and Cain was man.”
From this statement, we know that THE MAN is Adam. We know that Cain was WITH Adam, and therefore can't BE Adam. We know that since Cain was also of mankind, he was much LIKE Adam, but not EXACTLY EQUAL to Adam. For example, Adam was OLDER. Adam has a son, while Cain does not. Cain has a human father, while Adam does not. Adam is more experienced, stronger, and wiser than Cain. Etc, etc, etc. So the “Jesus was EVERYTHING that God was” claim does not work at all.
But I've got one simple question for you to answer HONESTLY:
Knowing that Cain was A man who wasn't THE man, would it hurt the translation or change the meaning of it in any way at all to add the indefinite article so it said, “and Cain was a man”?
mike
Ok Mike,you said:
Quote But in order for it to work, there has to be only one man in existence who can be called “THE man”. So let's make 1:1 about Adam and Cain, and just forget Eve for a minute. Can I tweek that to say that in order for that to work, there has to be only one man in existence who can be called “THE man” and only one more man in existence besides “THE man.”
If that were the case, then look at your question:
Quote Knowing that Cain was A man who wasn't THE man, would it hurt the translation or change the meaning of it in any way at all to add the indefinite article so it said, “and Cain was a man”? My answer is yes to that, I believe it would add confusion. The 'a' is unnecessary.
Kathi
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 23 2011,21:01) Hi WJ, Quote Look around Mike… Greek grammar doesn't include [a].
WJ
What was the debate-based reason for this post? The reason I ask is that it has been shown in these threads that this is true and that the insertion of the 'a' in the translation process is up to the translators discernment. It seems to my mind that you are trying to circle the debate process back to this issue which has already been resolved.With Love and Respect,
Wispring I'm just sayin'. Bingo! Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,21:31) My answer is yes to that, I believe it would add confusion. The 'a' is unnecessary. 
Okay Kathi, consider this:
1. John was man.
2. John was a man.Both of these statements mean that John was A member of the species of mankind, right? So how does adding the “a”, although unecessary, “add confusion”?
Now let's use our Adam and Cain version again, but let's translate it like the trinitarians translate the real John 1:1,
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Man, and Cain was Man.”Hmmmm………..taking out the word “THE” and capping both the “M's”…………………now THAT'S adding confusion, isn't it?
mike
Mike,
Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing. That is what I perceive anyway.I do think that taking out the definite article in 1b is not as clear as putting it in. I don't know why it is left out of the translations…it is in the Greek.
Kathi
Quote I do think that taking out the definite article in 1b is not as clear as putting it in. I don't know why it is left out of the translations…it is in the Greek.
Okay, there's some headway. And since “God” is generally used as another name for Jehovah, as in, “God is love”, let's change our Adam/Cain version of 1:1 just a little bit more:“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.”
Now what do we have? And do you see how far we've come from the original meaning? If you are claiming the theos in 1:1c conveys “nature” or whatever, then it is not being used as a proper name. And if it's not being used as a proper name, it shouldn't be capped. Just like my second “Adam” shouldn't be capped since it's referring only to Cain's nature as a human being.
But look at how they've destroyed the meaning of 1:1. They eliminate the “THE”, and cap both the proper name “God” and the qualitative “god”. (No, I don't agree that the theos in 1:1c is “qualitative”. I'm just saying that for argument's sake about the capped “G”.)
And once they've done that, they've gotten exactly what they set out to get: ignorant people believing that this verse is undeniable proof that Jesus is God Almighty Himself.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing. That is what I perceive anyway.
But either way, adding the “a” wouldn't add “confusion, like you said, right? If so, how?Mike,
I understand what you are saying but I think people look at the typical translation thinking that Jesus is divine and that the book of John shows the 'divinity' of Christ. It is my impression that people in general see the book of John proclaiming the divinity of Christ, not that He is the same person that He is with in verse 1:1b. I don't believe that I know of anyone that claims that Jesus is the same person that He is with in 1:1b. Trinitarians have three seperate persons, each being God in the triune God. In that way, the second person is with the first person…they don't believe that the second person is the first person. I think that the understanding is like this:
In the beginning was the word (the second person of the trinity), and the word was with God (the first person in the trinity), and the word (the second person of the trinity) was God (divinity).Regarding this:
Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison because the word 'adam' is not the english word for man and this sentence is an English translation, also, the word 'man' when changed to 'Man' doesn't change it from a sense of non-divinity to a sense of divinity. Bottom line, the word was God. God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
