Exposing freak greek

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,12:23)

Ed, can John 20:28, taken by itself, mean that Jesus is God Almighty?

Hi Mike,

Thomas recognized YHVH in Jesus! (John 20:28)

John 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest;
and how can we know the way? (Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and
put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:25)

John 10:38: But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works: that ye may know,
and believe, that  the Father is in me, and I in him.

Thomas recognized YHVH in Jesus! (John 20:28)
THOMAS THEREFORE BELIEVED THE WORKS! (John 20:29)
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

2Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them(because of Christ); and hath
committed unto us (HolySpirit)”The Word” of reconciliation.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I (die) go away: for
if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he(God) shall give you another Comforter(the HolySpirit),
that he(God) may abide with you for ever; (Note: Emmanuel also means “God with us”: Matthew 1:23)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,12:23)

Yes Ed, You must put your own personal beliefs and preferrences aside and just be HONEST.   peace and love to you my friend, mike

Hi Mike,

You mean I'm only honest if I agree with your view of God?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,18:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,12:23) Yes Ed, You must put your own personal beliefs and preferrences aside and just be HONEST.   peace and love to you my friend, mike Hi Mike, You mean I'm only honest if I agree with your view of God? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

NO Ed,

I mean the HONEST answer is that 20:28, TAKEN ALL BY ITSELF WITHOUT CONSIDERING ONE SINGLE OTHER SCRIPTURE, could mean that Jesus is God Almighty.

So before you listed all your explanation about Thomas seeing God in Jesus, you should have said “YES”.

You should have said, “Yes, taken completely by itself, it COULD mean that Jesus is God Almighty…………….BUT……………we have these other scriptures to consider, blah, blah, blah”

Because YES is the ONLY honest and direct answer to the question I asked you. I'm not saying you can't then share your understanding of why the REST OF THE SCRIPTURES teach that it ISN'T about Jesus being God Almighty. I'm saying answer the question with a DIRECT AND HONEST ANSWER FIRST……………THEN GIVE YOUR EXPLANATIONS.

Can you not see what I'm saying?

mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,13:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,18:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,12:23) Yes Ed, You must put your own personal beliefs and preferrences aside and just be HONEST.   peace and love to you my friend, mike Hi Mike, You mean I'm only honest if I agree with your view of God? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org NO Ed, I mean the HONEST answer is that 20:28, TAKEN ALL BY ITSELF WITHOUT CONSIDERING ONE SINGLE OTHER SCRIPTURE, could mean that Jesus is God Almighty. So before you listed all your explanation about Thomas seeing God in Jesus, you should have said “YES”. You should have said, “Yes, taken completely by itself, it COULD mean that Jesus is God Almighty…………….BUT……………we have these other scriptures to consider, blah, blah, blah” Because YES is the ONLY honest and direct answer to the question I asked you.  I'm not saying you can't then share your understanding of why the REST OF THE SCRIPTURES teach that it ISN'T about Jesus being God Almighty.  I'm saying answer the question with a DIRECT AND HONEST ANSWER FIRST……………THEN GIVE YOUR EXPLANATIONS. Can you not see what I'm saying? mike

Hi Mike,

What you are asking me to do is much like what Stuart asks.
Stuart says he is willing to admit there is a possibility God exists,
and then asks if I would be willing to admit that maybe he doesn't.

Since I know better, I cannot agree to what you ask!
I hope I have explained sufficiently enough why I cannot.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,19:24)

Hi Mike, What you are asking me to do is much like what Stuart asks. Stuart says he is willing to admit there is a possibility God exists, and then asks if I would be willing to admit that maybe he doesn't. Since I know better, I cannot agree to what you ask! I hope I have explained sufficiently enough why I cannot.

This is totally different Ed,

I'm not asking you to even think that God doesn't exist. I would not accept that possibility either.

Let me give you another example. You know that I believe Jesus to be “the Word” in 1:1. So you could ask me if, based only on that one scripture, there is any proof of Jesus being that “Word” who is mentioned.

My HONEST and DIRECT answer would have to be “NO”. Because based ONLY on that scripture, that is the ONLY HONEST answer I could give you.

AFTER THAT, I could point you to 1:14 and 1:18 and Rev 19, etc. But ONLY AFTER I DIRECTLY AND HONESTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

If you admit that you cannot HONESTLY answer a DIRECT question, they why in the world would anybody bother to discourse with you?

mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,13:34)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,19:24) Hi Mike, What you are asking me to do is much like what Stuart asks. Stuart says he is willing to admit there is a possibility God exists, and then asks if I would be willing to admit that maybe he doesn't. Since I know better, I cannot agree to what you ask! I hope I have explained sufficiently enough why I cannot. This is totally different Ed, I'm not asking you to even think that God doesn't exist.  I would not accept that possibility either. Let me give you another example.  You know that I believe Jesus to be “the Word” in 1:1.  So you could ask me if, based only on that one scripture, there is any proof of Jesus being that “Word” who is mentioned. My HONEST and DIRECT answer would have to be “NO”.  Because based ONLY on that scripture, that is the ONLY HONEST answer I could give you. AFTER THAT, I could point you to 1:14 and 1:18 and Rev 19, etc.  But ONLY AFTER I DIRECTLY AND HONESTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. If you admit that you cannot HONESTLY answer a DIRECT question, they why in the world would anybody bother to discourse with you?   mike

Hi Mike,

I have answered all the questions that you have asked me.
Your 'only' complaint is that you are not getting the answers you desire.
If people only give you the answer you are looking for, how are you going to learn?
That's like a king having a yes man who always says: yes king you are always right; think about it!

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

No Ed,

You haven't answered if it is grammatically possible to add the “a” in 1:1c. You couldn't even answer the “sample question” about John 20:28.

When you are ready to answer questions, I will be ready to discuss things with you again.

mike

[mikeboll64]

To Jack, Keith and Ed,

English translators add the indefinite article into over 8000 scriptures to make them understandable to us in English. There is no special Greek wording, circumstance, or rule of Greek grammar that would prohibit a translator from adding the indefinite article in 1:1c.

Am I lying? Have I spoken inaccurately? Or is what I've posted above the accurate truth?

mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,14:19)

No Ed, You haven't answered if it is grammatically possible to add the “a” in 1:1c.  You couldn't even answer the “sample question” about John 20:28. When you are ready to answer questions, I will be ready to discuss things with you again. mike

Hi Mike,

I answered the John 1:1 question four times so far.
It is possible to 'spin' any verse, that's why 'a' was added!

And Thomas recognized that YHVH was in Jesus' resurrected body.
Compare John 20:28-29 with John 14:8-9 and you should see a similarity.

John 14:8-9 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,
Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Thomas clearly seen YHVH in Jesus, after Jesus' resurrection! Sorry if this is too much for you grasp right now.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Last time Ed, and then I'm done.

I didn't ask for cute comments about “spinning” things, as if someone would have to be devious to add the “a” in 1:1c. I'm asking if, based on your knowledge of the Greek language and how it is translated into English, there is a rule prohibiting the addition of the indefinite article in 1:1c. I'm not asking whether or not you agree with the results of what the scripture would say IF the “a” was added. I'm asking if it is grammatically possible to add the “a”.

Likewise, I didn't ask for a long list of scriptures proving that Jesus is not God. I do very well with that subject myself. I asked if John 20:28, IN AND OF ITSELF, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OTHER SCRIPTURE OR ANY OTHER THING WHATSOEVER, could be saying Jesus is God Almighty BASED ONLY ON THE WORDS OF THAT ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE.

mike

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2011,13:29)

Hey Kangaroo, John 1:1c has no definite article before the last mention of theos for a reason. You can't read it as “And the Word was THE God”. If you do, not only are you adding a word, but you are also excluding the Father from being God in that statement. Back to the drawing board please.

t8,

What do you know about Greek? List your credentials please! John 1:1c should be translated “God” because the noun “God” is predicate nominative.

John 8:54 is an example:

“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is your God.”

There is no definite article before the word “God.” When the predicate is written in the nominative (theos) as opposed to the genetive (theou) it means “God.”

According to Mike's freak Greek it should be written thus:

“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is a god of you.”

The definite article is understood because the noun “God” is written in the nominative case.  Again, what are your Greek credentials? I took two years of TEXTBOOK Greek in college and have studied it for several years after that and am still studying it.

All Mike has is a couple of years of the layman's online Greek and he has a devised a freak Greek from that. He knows noting at all of Greek grammar and syntax. I am a REAL student of Greek and I don't go against the scholars unless I have compelling evidence. WHAT IS YOUR'S AND MIKE'S COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR GOING AGAINST ALL SCHOLARSHIP? You guys are arrogant IMO.

BTW, the NWT does not translate it 'a god' in John 8:54. Their bias is evident.

BACK TO SCHOOL FOR YOU T8!

KJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

TO ALL,

I give another example of the use of the word “God' without the definite article. The NWT translators did not insert the indefinite article 'a' in this instance. Their rule is that the indefinite article 'a' must be inserted when there id no definite article

“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is your God.”

There is no definite article before the word “God.” When the predicate is written in the nominative (theos) as opposed to the genetive (theou) it means “God.”

But according to the NWT translator's rule it should be written thus:

“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is a god of you.”

So why did the NWT translators depart from their rule? Answer: THEOLOGICAL BIAS!

KJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,09:24)

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?   WJ 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. WJ

Keith,

Good point bro! We are giving scholarly replies to Mike's freak Greek and all t8 has to give us is ad hominens.

Jack

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,13:34)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 12 2011,19:24) Hi Mike, What you are asking me to do is much like what Stuart asks. Stuart says he is willing to admit there is a possibility God exists, and then asks if I would be willing to admit that maybe he doesn't. Since I know better, I cannot agree to what you ask! I hope I have explained sufficiently enough why I cannot. This is totally different Ed, I'm not asking you to even think that God doesn't exist.  I would not accept that possibility either. Let me give you another example.  You know that I believe Jesus to be “the Word” in 1:1.  So you could ask me if, based only on that one scripture, there is any proof of Jesus being that “Word” who is mentioned. My HONEST and DIRECT answer would have to be “NO”.  Because based ONLY on that scripture, that is the ONLY HONEST answer I could give you. AFTER THAT, I could point you to 1:14 and 1:18 and Rev 19, etc.  But ONLY AFTER I DIRECTLY AND HONESTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. If you admit that you cannot HONESTLY answer a DIRECT question, they why in the world would anybody bother to discourse with you?   mike

Hi Mike,

Let's turn your question around; OK?   …looking forward to your answer!

Looking at John 1:1, is it possible John is calling the HolySpirit “The Word”?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,04:05)

I am a REAL student of Greek

So why is it so hard for you to answer a basic Greek grammatical question? You KNOW there is no “rule” that prohibits a translator from adding the “a” in 1:1c. Yet you won't come out and admit that.

Is there a rule Jack? Tell me what it is. Show me the expert evidence that says it is a complete impossibility to add the indefinite article to 1:1c.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,04:23)

Keith, Good point bro! We are giving scholarly replies to Mike's freak Greek and all t8 has to give us is ad hominens.

“Scholarly replies” my butt.

You are going scripture by scripture saying, “Nope!  No 'a' added in this one!”

I know, deal with Acts 12:22 and Acts 28:6 next.  Show me the “syntax rules” that allow adding the “a” in those and prohibit adding it in 1:1c.

Teach me, O wise Greek scholar.

mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 13 2011,14:31)

To Jack, Keith and Ed, English translators add the indefinite article into over 8000 scriptures to make them understandable to us in English.  There is no special Greek wording, circumstance, or rule of Greek grammar that would prohibit a translator from adding the indefinite article in 1:1c. Am I lying?  Have I spoken inaccurately?  Or is what I've posted above the accurate truth? mike

Hi Mike,

This is the sixth time that I have answered the same question now.

There were no truth police to prohibit the N.W.T. translators
from adding the indefinite article “a” where it was not needed to John 1:1.
The fact that they put it in there, proves in and of itself it is possible to put it where it is not needed.

I'm not familiar enough with the Greek language to answer questions about rules of Greek grammar.
I understand Hebrew more than Greek; but not very much Hebrew either.
I have watched a lot of Dr. Gene Scott videos. (Click Here)

He compares certain verses to other original translations, like: Syriac, Coptic(both forms),
Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, sometimes French, Spanish and even Russian;
to see what the biblical writers actually intended in certain verses.
This is only one of my many studies over the years.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2011,12:13)

There were no truth police to prohibit the N.W.T. translators from adding the indefinite article “a” where it was not needed to John 1:1. The fact that they put it in there, proves in and of itself it is possible to put it where it is not needed.

I guess that's as close as I'm going to get from you, Ed.  

Now that you've agreed there is no grammatical or syntax “rule” of Greek grammar prohibiting the “a” in 1:1c, that leaves it open to interpretation.  

Now that we've arrived at that point, I can present a strong case that we SHOULD interpret 1:1c to include the “a”.

I'll await Keith and Jack's response to this question:

Is adding the indefinite “a” in 1:1c simply a matter of INTERPRETATION, or is there a hard lined Greek rule of grammar that prohibits adding it at all?

mike

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

Every verse is open to interpretation to some degree.
The only reason they put John 1:1 the way they do
is, they believe “The Word” (FALSELY) to be Jesus.

ONLY once you “UNDERSTAND” that  The Word is the “HolySpirit”,
is there reason for manipulating John 1:1 to match their bias gone!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2011,06:31)

Hi Mike, Let's turn your question around; OK? …looking forward to your answer! Looking at John 1:1, is it possible John is calling the HolySpirit “The Word”?

Hi Ed,

Sorry but I must have overlooked this post. I'm just now seeing it.

Absolutely YES! If we took 1:1 in and of itself, it very well could be speaking of the Holy Spirit as the Word.

That reasoning only lasts for a second though, and is completely gone by verse 14. But the HONEST and DIRECT answer to your limited question is “YES”.

See how easy this is, guys? Answer with the TRUTH FIRST, and only AFTER THAT, go to town with your rebuttals and such.

mike

[Author]

Posts