- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi David,
Is it not true that the only reason the 'watchtower society' altered
John 1:1 is because they believe “The Word” (FALSELY) to be Jesus.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (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)
NOBecause 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 MikeI believe in “Only One True God” and Jesus is One with the Father and the Spirit as God. Same essence, substance and “KIND” which is God as the Apostles and most of the Forefathers believed and confessed.
On the other hand you believe John 1:1 should read “a god” and that is the definition of a Polytheist.
The Apostles or Forefathers never spoke of any other gods as “THEIR” God but ONE, right Mike?
But you say….(highlights mine)…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2011,14:49) No Keith, it is YOU who has “lost the debate” by insisting “only true God” MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY. But then you say…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2011,14:05) Jesus is one who has been called by the title “god”, so “HE IS ALSO A GOD”. He has not specifically been called “THE god” of anything in particular, but knowing that “god” only means “ruler”, I can honestly say that “HE IS MY GOD”. And along with…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 06 2011,17:00) And I don't know of a scripture that calls Jesus “the true god” (changed to [a] true god), but I agree that he is. Then you also said…
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. How are you going to teach any one about there being “Only One True God' when you teach there are “Other True Gods”?
I won't be posting much today because I have a lot of work to do.
WJ
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,02:40) As many trinitarian scholars agree, it is of course grammatically possible to translate John 1:1 as “a god.” It is simply not preferred by the trinitarians. I wonder why.
DavidMainly because of Polytheism. They understand that the Bible is a monotheistic book that teaches “Only One True God” and none others.
WJ
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,20:00) Kangaroo, for you to keep using the logic that you are a student of Greek, and therefore, we should just bow to your knowledge is absurd. Whether a student of Greek or a teacher of Greek, there are those who disagree with you. And every time you say you are a student of Greek, we could equally say, there are other students of Greek.
David,I was NOT suggesting that anyone bow to my knowledge. I am suggesting only that you novices stop being so arrogant and stop passing yourselves off as knowledgable of the Greek.
KJ
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,21:14) 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
I have never heard of or seen this rule. Perhaps you could show me where this rule exists?
Please do. If it once was a “rule” I don't think it is anymore.I think the “rule” would be more like:
Where the CONTEXT demands it, it is translated with the indefinite article.
David,You avoided my question in red bold. Why did the NWT translators depart from their rule in John 8:54?
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is your God.”
The NWT should read
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is a god of you.”
How convenient for you to ask a question of me without addressing the NWT's inconsistency.
KJ
WJ cited Mikeboll:
Quote He has not specifically been called “THE god” of anything in particular, but knowing that “god” only means “ruler”, I can honestly say that “HE IS MY GOD”.
Keith,I can't make any sense of this man! If the word “god” only means “ruler” as Mike says, then this would be true in reference to the Father also. So Mike can “honestly” say that the Father and Christ are both His God in the sense that they are both “only” his “ruler.”
Mike is getting more confused all the time.
Jack
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:44) Quote 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. –Mike.
Reading a lot of these threads, you would think that the one and only one place where “a” was used, was at John 1:1 and not the other 8000 times as well, in every Bible.
David,Did you read the first op? The predicate “God” is written before the subject for emphasis.
Presbyterian scholar R.C. Sproul said:
Quote In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning” (a clear reference to the opening words of the Bible), which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunnderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate God has been placed first for emphasis). The New Testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. Reformation Study Bible, John 1:1 note, page 1658
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 14 2011,10:48) WJ cited Mikeboll: Quote He has not specifically been called “THE god” of anything in particular, but knowing that “god” only means “ruler”, I can honestly say that “HE IS MY GOD”.
Keith,I can't make any sense of this man! If the word “god” only means “ruler” as Mike says, then this would be true in reference to the Father also. So Mike can “honestly” say that the Father and Christ are both His God in the sense that they are both “only” his “ruler.”
Mike is getting more confused all the time.
Jack
JackGood point. But at least Mike confesses that Jesus is “his god”.
David on the other hand argues that the NWT translation is right by rendering John 1:1c as Jesus being “a god” yet he cannot confess Jesus as “his god”.
The confusion is amazing how these guys teach that there is “Only One True God” yet confesses there are other “True Gods”.
They accuse Trinitarians of bias yet the JW translated not only the verse you mentioned the way they did but also the following is proof of their Bias and Hypocrisy…
The NWT translated the following two scriptures like this…
Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God” to Phar´aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. Exod 7:1 NWT
Then they translate John 1:1 as…
In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and “the Word was a god”. John 1:1 NWT
It looks like they see Moses as a greater god than Jesus.
Anyway why did they leave the “indefinite article [a]” out of Exod 7:1 and add it in John 1:1c?
David, you are a JW so can you answer this for us?
WJ
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,21:14) 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
I have never heard of or seen this rule. Perhaps you could show me where this rule exists? Please do. If it once was a “rule” I don't think it is anymore.
David,I was not as clear about the rule as I could have been.
Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way. Quote Distinguishing the Subject from the Predicate Nominative Given that case rather than word order determines syntax, if there are two nominatives one of which can be assumed to be a predicate nominative, how do we know which one is the subject and which one is the predicate, and does it matter?
Notice that in the examples of predicate constructions above, the predicate is anarthrous. Even in the ambiguous situation, the definite article is absent. Mark it down that in every instance where we need to construe one nominative as the predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is anarthrous. This will also be true when the copula is explicit. Accordingly, if one nominative is articular and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the articular nominative is the subject. Pronouns by virtue of their reference to an antecedent are specific even without a definite article. Hence, we can also say that if one nominative is a pronoun and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the pronoun is the subject.
Why does it matter? Consider the following
ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν (1 Jn 1:5) Both nominatives precede the verb. If “light” is the subject, the sentence would say that whatever is light can be said to be God, and that is not true. But the fact that “light” is anarthrous while “God” is articular confirms that the meaning is “God is light.”
the – god (2nd decl. nom.) – light (3rd decl. nom.) – is
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (Jn 1:1) The fact that “word” is articular while “God” is anarthrous makes it clear that John is telling us something about the word, namely, that the word was God.
god (2nd decl. nom.) – was – the – word (2nd decl. nom.)
ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί (Hb 1:10) “Works” and “heavens” are both nominatives. If “works” were the subject, then anything included in the phrase “works of your hands” would be “the heavens.” But because “heavens” is articular while “works” is anarthrous, we know the subject is “heavens,” and the meaning is the heavens are the works of God's hands.
works – of the – hands – of you – are – the – heavensIf both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way.
http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson14.htmSo the question is this: Is the predicate nominative 'God' in 1:1c a proper name? Answer: YES! Therefore, it is definite.
KJ
All
it seems to me that you look thing from men point of view,but if you see it from Gods point of view so that it is Gods view that make himself known to men ,what do you understand now??
looking up is not the same as looking down,i mean from men up or from God down.
wisdom is required.
Pierre
Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way.
http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson14.htmQuote Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for “God” in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning “gods”.[2] The singular forms eloah (אלוה) and el (אֱל) are used as PROPER NAMES or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-2The predicate nominative 'God' in John 1:1c is a proper name. Therefore, it is definite.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,04:11) Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way.
http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson14.htmQuote Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for “God” in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning “gods”.[2] The singular forms eloah (אלוה) and el (אֱל) are used as PROPER NAMES or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#cite_note-2The predicate nominative 'God' in John 1:1c is a proper name. Therefore, it is definite.
Quote Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for “God” in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning “gods”.[2] The singular forms eloah (אלוה) and el (אֱל) are used as PROPER NAMES or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:36) Quote 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!–Ed.
Hi Ed.
The Greek of John 1:1c has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
Hi David,So, since in was “NOT NEEDED” in John 1:1, why did the 'watchtower society' add it then?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgTO ALL,
What is a “proper name”?
Quote Proper names are names of persons, places, or certain special things. In English, these are typically capitalized nouns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(proper_names)The word “God” in John 1:1c is a proper name and therefore DEFINITE.
Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way. Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,01:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2011,13:28) 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)
NOBecause 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
Mike, i can't believe you got him to actually say “yes” to that question. It seems like that is something I have tried 100 times before. We should really start writing down the page numbers of these words.
Hi David,Look for the thread “Mike vs. Martian” in the debate section. You were right that they were spamming and flooding to “hide” Keith's recent acknowledgements. So to save all these tidbits in a place where anyone here could quote them but Jack and Keith can't “hide” them behind 1000 posts, I started a fake debate with a member who has been banned.
I will keep posting the scriptural TRUTHS that Keith and Jack speak as they come along. But they are few and far between, so it takes a lot of time. I guessed that to get them to HONESTLY answer my new question on this thread about the GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY of the “a” in 1:1c would take two weeks at least.
I've been trying for one week now, and so far no honest and direct answer of “YES, it IS grammatically possible”. In fact, they're stubbornly sticking with their “NO”, without showing the expert evidence of this fact that I've been asking for.
And that's where I need YOUR help, if you don't mind. You mentioned quotes from trinitarian scholars about the grammatical possibility…………could you post them for me?
That will give me all the ammo I need to get this honest answer out of them. Why is it like this? You would think if you were so proud of your doctrine and it really WAS the truth of the matter, that you would be able to coast through any discussion giving honest answer after honest answer. But it's like pulling teeth with these two, as you well know.
But I've been able to painstakenly corner them on a couple of things so far, as you've seen, and I'm not done yet.
Here's the link where you can find the quotes so far. I've started pasting the thread and page where the quote came from, and will continue to do that. And if YOU get some scriptural truths out of them at any time, pm me with the post, and I'll add it. These are for the use of everyone who's debating the trinity with Keith and Jack.
Which reminds me, I've got to find and add the post where Keith said he is God's BROTHER.
Thanks for your help and support on 1:1c, David. Those quotes I asked for will REALLY help out.
mike
Mike,
Most of your arguements are based on “Possiblities”.
For example the “possibility” of Theos meaning “kings” or “leader” and what not.But dont you think everything in GENERAL is a possiblity.
Dont you believe there is a direct truth that the writers are applying to thier terms.Though Theos can mean 9 different things, dont you think the writers mean ONE thing specfically.
For example the “light is very bright” well light has many diffinitions.
just because light COULD MEAN: very mininum weight:
Doesnt mean that is the truth in the context of what im speaking of.If In fact I am talking about light as a illumination and that will never change even though “mininum weight” is a possibility.
dont you see the debate has not changed at all?
to Add:
A possibility is just as good as a Scientific Theory, it could happen doesnt mean it has happened.
Or it could be this way, not that it is.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 14 2011,08:59) Then you also said… 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.
Keith,I have spoken scriptural truth in all of my quotes that you posted. You have taken the liberty of capitalizing the word “THE” in one of my quotes where it wasn't capped by me. Next time, please make a note of alteration or leave my quote the way you found it. This is what I really said:
Quote Jesus is the god, or “powerful ruler” of all in heaven right now, and of the believer's on earth. His own God, YHVH Almighty, has let His servant Jesus hold this position and power for a while, and then His servant Jesus will relinquish it back to “our God and his God”, the ONLY TRUE GOD. I don't usually mind the bolding and the capping so you can draw attention to the part of my post that's important to your point. But I have been distinguishing Jesus as “a god” from Jehovah as “THE God” for some time now. And for you to cap the word “THE” like you did is confusing and misleading, as if I was saying that Jesus was “THE God”.
The rest of what you quoted was fine, and I stand by it because every last bit of it I learned directly from the scriptures.
Keith, I'm done playing you and Jack's games on this thread. You have a question that you both need to answer honestly and directly. Here it is:
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?
If there is a Greek grammar rule absolutely forbidding the indefinite article in 1:1c, please post this rule so we can all learn. After all, that's what we're here for, right? If there is none that you are aware of, please clearly and honestly post that it IS a matter of interpretation.
Until this question is DIRECTLY and HONESTLY answered, I will ignore any posts from you both in this thread and just keep reposting this question.
Thanks in advance for your honest answer,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,11:49) Keith, 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?
Thanks in advance for your honest answer,
mike
Hi Mike,YEAA!!! you finally “hit” on the right question!!!
It is a matter of interpretation.
Hopefully they will give an “honest” answer?
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 14 2011,18:24) Mike,
Most of your arguements are based on “Possiblities”.
For example the “possibility” of Theos meaning “kings” or “leader” and what not.Though Theos can mean 9 different things, dont you think the writers mean ONE thing specfically.
to Add:
A possibility is just as good as a Scientific Theory, it could happen doesnt mean it has happened.
Or it could be this way, not that it is.
Hi Dennison,Welcome to the Freak Greek thread!
You are right that MANY things are possible, not all. But rest assured that I know EXACTLY what I'm doing by asking the particular questions I'm asking. I have an end game clearly in sight, and if I could just simply ask a question and get HONEST and DIRECT answers from others, that end would have played out over a year ago.
But because you “Jesus is God” people know the scriptures are against you, you must hold on to any POSSIBILITY that you have for dear life, and INSIST that particular POSSIBILITY is not a POSSIBILITY, but a bonafide FACT.
And for this reason, it's taking me a long time to put this all together.
Maybe you can't see what I'm doing yet, but your “Jesus is God” doctrine is falling down right around you………….by the words of your own mouths.
Pay attention to what Keith's FINALLY admitted. He's admitted that there are elohim in scripture who are neither God Almighty nor false gods. He's admitted that just because Jesus is called “elohim” or “theos” does NOT mean he is God Almighty. Bam! There goes the only 5 (6 if you insist on Titus 2:13 against all odds) scriptures in the whole Bible where Jesus is referred to as “el”, “elohim” or “theos”. And what I mean by “there goes” is that they can no longer be used as PROOF POSITIVE. We must now bring the context into it.
And as soon as we bring in context, we're now dealing with A theos who was WITH THE Theos in the beginning. (1:1)
And A BEGOTTEN theos. (1:18)
And a prophecy where THE Elohim foretold that Jesus would be called mighty el who will reign from DAVID'S throne, (not God's). And we learn that the zeal of JEHOVAH will be what accomplishes all of this. (Is 9:6)
See? When you lose the “Jesus IS God because he's CALLED 'God' factor”, and have to deal with context, there becomes a clear winner in this debate. Because every mention of Jesus as “god” has CLEAR context explaining that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO his OWN God, Jehovah Almighty.
What I've shown you here is only the tip of the iceberg, D. So to answer your query, YES, I AM basing arguments on POSSIBILITIES. Because if there's a POSSIBILITY that the indefinite article “a” can be faithfully added in 1:1c, then that means there's a POSSIBILITY that it SHOULDN'T ever say, “and the Word was God”. One once they admit this POSSIBILITY, which they will eventually, because they are diverters and flooders, but not flat out LIARS – then we can go into the CONTEXT of which one makes more common sense for God to be WITH in the beginning: another mighty one, or HIMSELF. And then we can follow John 1 verse by verse and see which one CONSISTENTLY makes sense down the line.
Get it?
Unfortunately, I can't ever just ask a simple question and get a simple truthful answer. I must go round and round and spend hours and hours strategically posting back and forth and discussing every thing else under the sun in the process. But I'm determined, and eventually I get the simple truthful answer to the simple question I asked – it's just that sometimes it's a year later.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
