- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,06:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
WJ
Hi WJ,I did not agree with Mike, and Mike did not call any of us 'dishonest'!
This is more evidence of the spin that you, WJ, put on the facts!
Perhaps you're generally blind to this? But may you see!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,06:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
WJ
Hi WJ,I did not agree with Mike, and Mike did not call any of us 'dishonest'!
This is more evidence of the spin that you, WJ, put on the facts!
Perhaps you're generally blind to this? But may you see!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMike didn't say you were not answering his question “honestly” did he?
Mind your own buisness if all you have to do is accuse and insult.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,06:26) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,06:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
WJ
Hi WJ,I did not agree with Mike, and Mike did not call any of us 'dishonest'!
This is more evidence of the spin that you, WJ, put on the facts!
Perhaps you're generally blind to this? But may you see!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMike didn't say you were not answering his question “honestly” did he?
Mind your own buisness if all you have to do is accuse and insult.
WJ
Hi WJ,Isn't that what you are doing towards Mike?
Why are you blaming me for what you are doing?If I asked you: did you answer “honestly”?
would you take that to mean I believe you hadn't?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi WJ,
I'm “ONLY” trying to illustrate to you the 'spin' that you put to the facts.
Maybe you will be a 'little' more aware of this in the future; aye?Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:40) If I asked you: did you answer “honestly”?
would you take that to mean I believe you hadn't?
Ed you are a waste of my time.Why should I even be arguing this with you?
This is what Mike said..
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Is his wording anything like yours?WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:43) Hi WJ, I'm “ONLY” trying to illustrate to you the 'spin' that you put to the facts.
Maybe you will be a 'little' more aware of this in the future; aye?
No you are just here to agitate and spin things like you just did in your example of a question that doesn't even compare to what mike said.Get off my back please!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,06:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
WJ
Mike has just said that I am dishonest. Yet he just gave me a tile for suggesting that he is dishonest. He should not be a moderator because a moderator by definition is a NON-PARTICIPANT in a discussion, debate or a dispute. The moderator's duty is to keep order.Mike should have reported my post to t8 just like anyone else and let t8 decide if i was worthy of being warned and mmarked. When a moderator is involved in a discussion himself, them that moderator ought to defer the warnings and marks to t8.
I can't give Mike a tile for suggesting that I am dishonest and I wouldn't if I could. I thank Christ for counting me worthy to suffer for His sake.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,10:37) Hi Mike, OK… John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(Google) ye the Father of the devil Tas biscuits and desire his father poiesis YOU want not one murderer
from the beginning and in the truth that he quite a estiken He is not truth in him when he
lalῇ falsehood speaks from its own, because a liar is he and his fatherSometimes it needs a little help in translating. But you can hardly say it has bias.
You can still extract (the essence) of the translation; can you not?
I can adjust the English, but you might call that 'spin'?
So we have Google Translator, (as coaxed by Ed J)?
My point is this: Why would Google add the indefinite article in front of “liar” when it's not in the Greek?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:13) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,10:37) Hi Mike, OK… John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(Google) ye the Father of the devil Tas biscuits and desire his father poiesis YOU want not one murderer
from the beginning and in the truth that he quite a estiken He is not truth in him when he
lalῇ falsehood speaks from its own, because a liar is he and his fatherSometimes it needs a little help in translating. But you can hardly say it has bias.
You can still extract (the essence) of the translation; can you not?
I can adjust the English, but you might call that 'spin'?
So we have Google Translator, (as coaxed by Ed J)?My point is this: Why would Google add the indefinite article in front of “liar” when it's not in the Greek?
mike
The devil is called THE father of lies in that same scripture. This means that he is also “THE liar.” Therefore, the indefinite proves nothing. Anyway, John 8:44 is not written “identically the same” as Mike has erroneously asserted. Mike originally argued for his freak Greek on the basis that they are written “identically the same.” Seeing that they are not written “identically the same” Mike has no proof for his freak Greek.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 12 2011,12:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,11:28) Quote Jack says…WE HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU! THE ANSWER IS NO!
Yeah, but I said “HONESTLY”, Jack.
Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
WJ
Keith and Jack,I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
The fact is that whether you speak out of dishonesty or ignorance, you are speaking untruthfully and inaccurately. I've adjusted my question to filter out any would-be dishonesty or ignorance – please answer the adjusted question DIRECTLY and HONESTLY.
We know that over 1000 times, the indefinite article “a” is added into the Greek NT by English translators – and two of those times, the added “a” precedes the word “god”.
Knowing this, is there any clear scholarly or expert EVIDENCE to support your claim that it is a COMPLETE GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for the indefinite article “a” to be added to 1:1c, so that it is translated as “the Word was a god”?
Please answer this question DIRECTLY.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 12 2011,13:04) I can't give Mike a tile for suggesting that I am dishonest and I wouldn't if I could. I thank Christ for counting me worthy to suffer for His sake.
Hey Jack,What does “Christ” even mean?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 12 2011,13:26) Anyway, John 8:44 is not written “identically the same” as Mike has erroneously asserted. Mike originally argued for his freak Greek on the basis that they are written “identically the same.” Seeing that they are not written “identically the same” Mike has no proof for his freak Greek.
What I did in that first debate over a year ago was to quote the Watchtower about John 8:44.You seem to be hindging a lot of weight on “IDENTICAL” here. Jack, is 8:44 SO DISSIMILAR that it CAN have the “a” added but 1:1 CAN'T?
If so, show me the evidence from a Greek scholar that ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS 1:1 from saying “a god”. If you can't do that, then it stands to reason it IS possible. Now I KNOW it is, and YOU KNOW it is, but I want you to to be honest and admit for everyone on this thread that, even though you have your own reasons for not LIKING the “a god” translation, the translation IS, nonetheless, POSSIBLE.
Just admit it Jack. We all KNOW it to be true, so what do you think it makes you look like by insisting it isn't?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:13) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,10:37) Hi Mike, OK… John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(Google) ye the Father of the devil Tas biscuits and desire his father poiesis YOU want not one murderer
from the beginning and in the truth that he quite a estiken He is not truth in him when he
lalῇ falsehood speaks from its own, because a liar is he and his fatherSometimes it needs a little help in translating. But you can hardly say it has bias.
You can still extract (the essence) of the translation; can you not?
I can adjust the English, but you might call that 'spin'?
So we have Google Translator, (as coaxed by Ed J)?My point is this: Why would Google add the indefinite article in front of “liar” when it's not in the Greek?
mike
Hi Mike,Because for some sentences to make sense in English,
the indefinite article (a or an) is “sometimes” necessary!
As you know: neither Hebrew nor Greek have indefinite articles.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:33) Keith and Jack, I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
mike
Thanks Mike!See WJ, my technique worked! …You don't influence friends with 'a baseball bat'!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:46) Hi Mike, Because for some sentences to make sense in English,
the indefinite article (a or an) is “sometimes” necessary!
As you know: neither Hebrew nor Greek have indefinite articles.
This I know, Ed. In fact I have been arguing this for months now. So for you to act like you're “teaching” this to me right now is unnecessary.NOW………….tell me why the almighty Google would choose to ADD THE “A” before “liar”, but NOT before “god” in 1:1?
Does the almighty Google translator, which has John 8:44 speaking of “biscuits”, know something I don't?
I'll tell you what, let's forget about Google translator, and just answer my question:
Based on the Greek words in 1:1c, is it IMPOSSIBLE to add the “a” so that it reads “the Word is a god”?
It's a simple YES or NO question, and I'll even give you a hint: (The answer is “NO”)
mike
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,14:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:33) Keith and Jack, I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
mike
Thanks Mike!See WJ, my technique worked! …You don't influence friends with 'a baseball bat'!
EDThanks Mike for being honest and admitting you were saying we were dishonest. Some would rather side with wrong than right.
You see Ed you sided with Mike instead of correcting him you corrected me when he was the one wrong and admits it.
What does that say about you ED? Where is your oppology for saying that I was spinning Mikes words?
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,13:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:33) Keith and Jack, I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
mike
Thanks Mike!See WJ, my technique worked! …You don't influence friends with 'a baseball bat'!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Keith and Jack were right, along with you, Ed.I DID imply dishonesty on their part, but not yours. They had a right to be offended, where you didn't.
So all three of you were right, and I was wrong.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 12 2011,13:26) Anyway, John 8:44 is not written “identically the same” as Mike has erroneously asserted. Mike originally argued for his freak Greek on the basis that they are written “identically the same.” Seeing that they are not written “identically the same” Mike has no proof for his freak Greek.
What I did in that first debate over a year ago was to quote the Watchtower about John 8:44.You seem to be hindging a lot of weight on “IDENTICAL” here. Jack, is 8:44 SO DISSIMILAR that it CAN have the “a” added but 1:1 CAN'T?
If so, show me the evidence from a Greek scholar that ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS 1:1 from saying “a god”. If you can't do that, then it stands to reason it IS possible. Now I KNOW it is, and YOU KNOW it is, but I want to to be honest and admit for everyone on this thread that, even though you have your own reasons for not LIKING the “a god” translation, the translation IS, nonetheless, POSSIBLE.
Just admit it Jack. We all KNOW it to be true, so what do you think it makes you look like by insisting it isn't?
mike
Hi Mike,What you have not even considered is
that the Coptic may need the indefinite article
in John 1:1 for it to make sense in the Coptic language.
We know that it is not necessary (in this case) to add it in English!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,07:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,14:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:33) Keith and Jack, I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
mike
Thanks Mike!See WJ, my technique worked! …You don't influence friends with 'a baseball bat'!
EDThanks Mike for being honest and admitting you were saying we were dishonest. Some would rather side with wrong than right.
You see Ed you sided with Mike instead of correcting him you corrected me when he was the one wrong and admits it.
What does that say about you ED? Where is your oppology for saying that I was spinning Mikes words?
WJ
Hi WJ,You did the exact same thing that Mike was doing.
And Mike did see through me yelling at the wrong person!
You continue to 'spin' everyone's words; even words in The Bible!
If you are more aware of this trait, then I have done my Job correctly! (2Cor.7:9)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,07:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,14:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,07:33) Keith and Jack, I apologize for the dishonesty claim. I'm pretty sure I'm aware of your intent, but I can't claim to KNOW that for sure, and so I shouldn't have implied dishonesty or lying.
I'M SORRY.
mike
Thanks Mike!See WJ, my technique worked! …You don't influence friends with 'a baseball bat'!
EDThanks Mike for being honest and admitting you were saying we were dishonest. Some would rather side with wrong than right.
You see Ed you sided with Mike instead of correcting him you corrected me when he was the one wrong and admits it.
What does that say about you ED? Where is your oppology for saying that I was spinning Mikes words?
WJ
Hi WJ,You did the exact same thing that Mike was doing.
And Mike did see through me yelling at the wrong person!
You continue to 'spin' everyone's words; even words in The Bible!
If you are more aware of this trait, then I have done my Job correctly! (2Cor.7:9)
Just as I figured, no appology for accusing me of spinning Mikes words.Just more of your highmindedness!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
