Exposing freak greek

http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

Do I need to go through the 8482 times the indefinite article “A” is added into scripture?

You need only to go through the twenty out of twenty-two times that the NWT does not insert the indefinite article when there is no article before the word God.

Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses' own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God.

Don't forget that you said that John 8:44 is written “identically the same” as John 1:1 when they clearly are not.

March 11, 2011 at 6:34 pm#238855

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:28)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24)

Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,16:31)

Because John was not a Polytheist and the Bible is not a Polytheistic book.

But Keith, let me remind you once again of your OWN words:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011 @ 19:31)

Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011 @ 05:31)

Mike

Yes

Based on your big blue words above, YOU are a polytheist also, right?

mike

No Mike. I said they are mentioned in scriptures. I didn't say I believe they are Gods. I believe in “Only One True God” being taught in scriptures and all others are so-called gods and not gods at all but only called gods by men because Paul said there is no God but one. I believe Jesus is the “Godkind” for he is the Only (Monogenes) Begotten Son.

The Bible mentions false gods, idols, judges, men, rulers depending on context but no Hebrew or follower of Christ ever called any of them their god for there is Only One True God of Gods people.

If there is an example of a Hebrew or follower of Christ that called them “Their God” then present a scripture. Oh, that’s right the Father and Jesus are only called “my God” by his followers and according to your words that includes you…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 05 2011,18:35)

Jesus is the god, or “powerful ruler” of all in heaven right now, and of the believer's on earth.

So it looks like he is your god too and if that is so I hope he is the “One True God” or else you serve more than one God.

March 11, 2011 at 6:36 pm#238856

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 10 2011,21:41)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,16:24)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2011,21:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:42)

Jack

I wonder if Mike got his material from Watchtower again?

Equally KJ might have got his stuff from the Vatican.
After all the Catholic faith is the Trinity doctrine.

The Cathoilic faith is …..Trinity

Yep

The Catholic church also believes in Jesus death, burial and ressurection. So what is your point?

The God and the Catholics is the reason you even have a BIble.

you really do not trust God,

catholic church so pagan.

the bible is Gods word not the catholic church book ,she just stole it and prevent others to know God.

Pierre

Peirre

I trust the scriptures as being the inspired word of God, all of them, and you don't!

Who is the Pagan?

March 11, 2011 at 8:07 pm#238865

Participant

Keith said:

Quote

Peirre

I trust the scriptures as being the inspired word of God, all of them, and you don't!

Who is the Pagan?

Keith,

Before we're done they will ALL be denying the authenticity of scriptures. They will show their true colors to the mega number of readers who read this board every day.

Jack

March 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm#238874

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 11 2011,14:07)

Keith said:

Quote

Peirre

I trust the scriptures as being the inspired word of God, all of them, and you don't!

Who is the Pagan?

Keith,

Before we're done they will ALL be denying the authenticity of scriptures. They will show their true colors to the mega number of readers who read this board every day.

Jack

I was thinking that might be Mikes next attack strategy is to go after the authenticity of the Bible since he can't prove his theology by holding on to all the scriptures he will have to attack the scriptures and set out to prove they are corrupt.

He has started down that road with Matthew 28:19 which is proof he doesn't believe in the authenticity of all scriptures in the Bible which makes the Bible corrupt.

That is the only thing they have to disprove the Trinitarian book we call the Bible.

They should stick with an anti-Trinitarian bible like the NWT or write their own instead of twisting, wresting, and whiting out the scriptures in the Bible with their unbelief and doubt of them.

The debate is all about the scriptures and it is 'checkmate” for those who deny all of the scriptures as being inspired.

March 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm#238877

Participant

Hi all

Mike trys to make a comparison against the evidence in the 1000s of MSS.

Here is what he said in another thread…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,18:32)

Here's what you have on your side of this:
1. There has yet to be found (at least admittedly) a ms that doesn't say, “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.

2. The scripture, as is, could be understood to be talking about ONE NAME that encompasses all three.

Found Here!

Boom! Checkmate!

There is no greater evidence than over 5000 MSS having the scripture Matthew 28:19 in its tripart form.

What makes this even more iron clad is that there is not a single MSS that has the verse in a different format or that it is missing.

So all of his comparisons and arguments and spin against that fact is just smoke in the wind. Give it up Mike! Admit that you doubt the Bible and that it is corrupt because you doubt scriptures in it.

March 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm#238880

Participant

Keith said:

Quote

He has started down that road with Matthew 28:19 which is proof he doesn't believe in the authenticity of all scriptures in the Bible which makes the Bible corrupt.

Mike may as well become a Muslim for they arbitrarily and without any textual basis claim corruption on every text that does not match their doctrines.

Jack

March 11, 2011 at 11:42 pm#238881

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 11 2011,11:27)

You need only to go through the twenty out of twenty-two times that the NWT does not insert the indefinite article when there is no article before the word God.

Hmmm………….I wonder if that could be because those times ARE actually talking about God Almighty?

March 12, 2011 at 12:21 am#238882

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,11:34)

No Mike. I said they are mentioned in scriptures. I didn't say I believe they are Gods.

No, actually what you said, rather INSISTED, is that the word “elohim” MEANS “God”. It doesn't, but that's what you and Francis and SF and Jack all insisted.

So then you said that all of the “elohim” in scripture who were NOT Jesus or Jehovah were “false gods” and “so-called gods”.

So then I showed you scriptures that speak of actual vice regents of God Himself being called “elohim”. I showed you that Paul never used the words “so-called”, nor did he use quotes around the words “gods” and “lords”. Paul simply said that there are many who are called god, whether in heaven OR on earth, for there ARE many gods and many lords.

But then we had to go round and round and round for months, like always – until you finally admitted that there WERE elohim/gods in scripture who were neither God Almighty NOR “false gods”.

You see Keith, you can't have it both ways. You can't say all of these things:

1. Elohim DOES mean “god”.
2. There ARE elohim (“gods” according to your claim in #1) in scripture who are neither God nor false gods.
3. There is only one “god” mentioned in scripture.

One of those things doesn't fit in with the others.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,11:34)

I believe in “Only One True God” being taught in scriptures

Yes, I know you do. But unlike you, I also believe the part of those scriptures that clearly tell us who this “Only One True God” is. (Hint: Scriptures say it is the Father)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,11:34)

The Bible mentions false gods, idols, judges, men, rulers depending on context but no Hebrew or follower of Christ ever called any of them their god

No Keith, the Bible mentions “elim”, “elohim” and “theos”. Don't go changing the scriptures just because YOU don't want to accept that “elohim” simply meant “ruler” or “mighty one”.

What you're saying is, to fit YOUR doctrine, YOU are going to decide when the word is “god” and when it's “judge”. Unfortunately you are also the one who says it MEANS “god”.

But we are getting off topic. The fact of the matter is that John could have happily called Jesus “my god” without ever inferring, or even thinking that he was “THE God”. That's just the way the word was used back then, and we KNOW this from scripture.

mike

March 12, 2011 at 3:12 am#238890

Blocked

This is very telling. This is how every single question goes when debating with trinitarians. It's like pulling teeth. And it shouldn't be.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when Trinitarians can't honestly answer the most simple and direct question with a direct answer. What are they hiding? The fact that their doctrine is so comically flawed that any third grader can debunk it?

Jack and Keith:

NO, it is NOT grammatically impossible, nor even grammatically incorrect to translate 1:1c as “and the Word was a god”.

Keith knows this is true, and Jack definitely does. It is laughable that you both must misrepresent the truth of this matter.

Let's take YOUR translation and follow it through:
1. The Word is THE God.
2. In the beginning, THE God was WITH THE God. (God is ONE BEING, so the ONE BEING of God cannot possibly be WITH the ONE BEING of God.)
3. THE God became flesh, and people were able to see THE God and touch THE God, in direct contrast to what the scriptures teach.
4. THE God is begotten. (1:18)
5. THE God is the Anointed One OF THE God.
6. THE God was SENT by THE God.
7. THE God was tortured and killed by the puny humans He Himself created.
8. THE God many times prayed to THE God.
9. THE God asked THE God to glorify him.
10. THE God, while dead, somehow raised Himself from the dead.
11. Death DID have power over THE God for a time. DEATH! Something THE God created in the first place had power over HIM?
12. THE God was raised to the right hand of THE God.

Man, I could go on and on and on. This is just a sample of the STUPIDITY one must accept to become a Trinitarian.

mike

March 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm#238915

Blocked

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:17)

Do I need to go through the 8482 times the indefinite article “A” is added into scripture?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,11:09)

Not with the word “theos”, God you can't, can you?

Yes, as a matter of fact I can.

Acts 28:6 NIV
6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

Acts 12:22
They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.”

There are two examples. 1:1c would be the third.

From our brother David:

Quote

The very first translations where they had the word “a” in their langauge, they did include the “a” in the text.

Of course, Greek, Latin, amaraic, etc… the langauges that came before English had no indefinite article, so until the 1500's it wasn't even an option. But of course, just a couple hundred years after the original text was written, the coptic translations included the indefinite article. It was basically Egyptian written in Greek letters with a few letters added.

And here's the kicker:

THEY TRANSLATED THIS WHILE COMMON (KOINE) GREEK WAS STILL SPOKEN AS A LANGUAGE. How did they translate it?

“a god.”

Keith, why do you think the Coptic version has been “hidden away” by the trinitarian “cream of Greek scholarship”?

Keith and Jack, the FACT is that 1:1c CAN be properly translated as “the Word was a god” and you both know it. There is NO Greek grammatical rule that keeps this translation from being accurate………..and you both know THAT too.

You both flat out LIE when you say the “a god” translation is a GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, because it's clearly not. And the Coptics are proof of this. With the Coptic translation, you have a language that did use the indefinite article and was in use AT THE SAME TIME the Koine Greek of the NT was still being used. And that most likely means the persons who translated the Coptic version actually spoke the Koine Greek of the NT and knew first hand what 1:1c meant.

Add to this the nonsensical things that YOUR version teaches…..

1. The Word is THE God.
2. In the beginning, THE God was WITH THE God. (God is ONE BEING, so the ONE BEING of God cannot possibly be WITH the ONE BEING of God.)
3. THE God became flesh, and people were able to see THE God and touch THE God, in direct contrast to what the scriptures teach.
4. THE God is begotten. (1:18)
5. THE God is the Anointed One OF THE God.
6. THE God was SENT by THE God.
7. THE God was tortured and killed by the puny humans He Himself created.
8. THE God many times prayed to THE God.
9. THE God asked THE God to glorify him.
10. THE God DIED!
11. THE God, while dead, somehow raised Himself from the dead.
12. Death DID have power over THE God for a time. (DEATH! Something THE God created in the first place had power over HIM? )
13. THE God was raised to the right hand of THE God.
14. THE God will hand the Kingdom back over the THE God, so THE God can be all in all.
15. Then at the same time, THE God will rule as a Prince to THE God, in the name and strength of THE God, who will be THE God to the people.

……and it is clear what John 1:1 really teaches.

Keith and Jack, can you show evidence to back up your answer? I'm not talking about the “trinitarian cream of Greek scholarship” blabbing on and on about how “IMPROBABLE” the “a god” translation is, or how much their translation is “PREFERRED” by all the “smart people”. I'm talking about CLEAR EVIDENCE that SPECIFICALLY says 1:1c ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE TRANSLATED AS “THE WORD WAS A GOD” BECAUSE THE GREEK WORDS SIMPLY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THAT TRANSLATION.

If you cannot show me this, then your answer of “YES, it is IMPOSSIBLE” will remain a LIE.

mike

March 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm#238918

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,11:09)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:17)

Do I need to go through the 8482 times the indefinite article “A” is added into scripture?

Not with the word “theos”, God you can't, can you?

Yes, as a matter of fact I can.

Acts 28:6 NIV
6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

Acts 12:22
They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.”

There are two examples. 1:1c would be the third.

They are false gods and not “The God”. Surely you can do better than that. Now explain to us grammatically why the translators should have put an “a” in John 1:1c.

March 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm#238919

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)

Keith, why do you think the Coptic version has been “hidden away” by the trinitarian “cream of Greek scholarship”?

Mike

Davids so called evidence has already been debunked! Do some research and come again. What will you have? Nothing to stack against the translations and translators today.

March 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm#238921

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)

I'm talking about CLEAR EVIDENCE that SPECIFICALLY says 1:1c ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE TRANSLATED AS “THE WORD WAS A GOD” BECAUSE THE GREEK WORDS SIMPLY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THAT TRANSLATION.

Mike

What more can anyone give you that is not clear? The 1000s of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek did not sign off their reputations or credentials to bias. You are naive man.

But the most important evidence is the scriptures themselves that do not teach Polytheism.

John was not a Polytheist and would not have written God was with [a] god by whom he created all things.

If you want a Polytheistic Bible then take the NWT and the few scarce unreliable translations if you like and continue to teach there is more than one god in John 1:1.

Now how about you showing us clear evidence how grammatically it shoud be translated as “a god”. Even t8 and most of your ant-Jesus is God crowd disagree with you Mike.

March 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm#238922

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)

god by whom he created all things.

If you want a Polytheistic Bible then take the NWT and the few scarce unreliable translations if you like and continue to teach there is more than one god in John 1:1.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:17)

If you cannot show me this, then your answer of “YES, it is IMPOSSIBLE” will remain a LIE.

Well it is possible that anyone like the JWs can translate it that way, but is it grammatically and textually possible to be translated that way?

The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same. Unless you are an expert and can prove Grammatically how it is possible then you are just blowing steam.

March 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm#238923

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 12 2011 @ 09:09)

They are false gods and not “The God”.

Ah, but that was not your point, was it? Your point was that the indefinite article is not added before the word “god”.

You were wrong, right?

Furthermore, when the people of the island of Malta thought Paul must have been a “mighty one”, why would you assume to be a “mighty one”, he would have had to have been a FALSE “mighty one”?

Paul said there are MANY GODS, whether IN HEAVEN or on earth. Get it? Is an angel of God who is a vice regent of God considered a FALSE god to you? Boy, it's a good thing that you weren't Abraham, or you would have blew off God's angels by telling them they were nothing but “false gods”.

mike

March 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm#238924

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,03:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)

I'm talking about CLEAR EVIDENCE that SPECIFICALLY says 1:1c ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE TRANSLATED AS “THE WORD WAS A GOD” BECAUSE THE GREEK WORDS SIMPLY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THAT TRANSLATION.

Mike

What more can anyone give you that is not clear? The 1000s of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek did not sign off their reputations or credentials to bias. You are naive man.

But the most important evidence is the scriptures themselves that do not teach Polytheism.

John was not a Polytheist and would not have written God was with [a] god by whom he created all things.

If you want a Polytheistic Bible then take the NWT and the few scarce unreliable translations if you like and continue to teach there is more than one god in John 1:1.

Now how about you showing us clear evidence how grammatically it shoud be translated as “a god”. Even t8 and most of your ant-Jesus is God crowd disagree with you Mike.

WJ said:

Quote

John was not a Polytheist and would not have written God was with [a] god by whom he created all things.

Keith,

Right on bro! It has already been shown that if John wwanted to CLEARLY communicate that Jesus was 'a' god he had the indefinite pronoun 'tis' he could have used.

Quote

[T]hough the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.

Mike's freak Greek has been exposed. The word order is this, “And GOD was the Word” with the emphasis being on the predicate “God” because it precedes the subject.

Jack

March 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm#238925

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 12 2011,09:13)

Mike

Davids so called evidence has already been debunked!

Debunked? By whom?

Keith, DO THE COPTICS RENDER IT AS “a god” or not?

mike

March 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm#238926