- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Keith said to Mike:
Quote And you are a liar to be calling me dishonest when you have not proven anything except the opinions of a couple of scholars.
Give Mike a tile Keith. He can't take his integrity being called into question but he can surely question the integrity of others.
Mike has no business being a moderator because he participates way too much in way too many discussions to keep his objectivity.A moderator by definition does not participate or participates in the very least. A compotent moderator would never himself call someone's integrity into question but would correct those who do.
Get lost Mike! Find another playground! Or if you continue to play here then resign as moderator.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,01:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,18:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,16:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,17:37) Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60. C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Keith, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
MikeWhy do you ask the same question I have answered.
NO!
John 1:1 to you is ambiguous but the 100s of scholars who translated it anarthrous in over 100 translations do not think so including the sources you quote who say it would be Polytheistic. None of then say it should be “arthrous” do they Mike?
WJ
Really? I can't believe it. The words of the experts who say it IS a grammatical possibility are right there above the question I asked. And the question was “ACCORDING TO THESE EXPERTS………….”You can clearly see that ACCORDING TO THEM, it IS possible, yet you still say “NO!”
You sir, have either misread the question, or are a LIAR. And I prefer to not engage in scriptural discussions with LIARS.
mike
I see Mike.I am a liar because I do not accept the testimony of a couple of scholars.
You are the liar by lying against me. You know nothing of my integrity and have rejected my reasons for not agreeing with you or the scarttered scholars opinions.
What if I can find a legitimate scholar who says it is not grammatically possible to have an [a], are you going to repent and accept Jesus as your God?
I have over a 100 translations with possibly thousands of scholars who disagree with your and the JWs conclusion on John 1:1. So who is lying to say that it should have an [a] in opposition of the 100s?
WJ
Keith,Please report Mike to t8. Mike has given me tiles for calling his honesty into question and he keeps doing the same thing. It's not right that he is not being held to the same standard here.
Jack
My 2 cents worth.
Mike shouldn't call anyone a liar.
But, Mike didn't call anyone a liar.
He said EITHER you are one or you are not reading the evidence properly.
So he is also open to the possibility that KJ is not reading the evidence properly meaning that KJ is not a liar.However, I think that it is better to say “either you are not not being truthful in this issue” … Why? Because a liar is someone who practices lies, not a person who tells a lie. Just as a fisherman is someone who practices fishing as opposed to someone who caught a fish.
I also think that there are more than 2 options, so that if KJ is reading the sentence, there could be another reason besides lying that leads him to take the stance he has. One example could be that KJ is not understanding the evidence.
In saying this, I also acknowledge that KJ is perhaps not admitting to the facts presented, (which I can relate to in my experience) leading Mike to say that this action could be dishonest.
Mike is calling you out on this KJ, so you should respond with an explanation as to why you are ignoring his evidence.
Honesty does go a long way.
If you did that in the first place, then such dialog could have been avoided.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2011,09:32) My 2 cents worth. Mike shouldn't call anyone a liar.
But, Mike didn't call anyone a liar.
He said EITHER you are one or you are not reading the evidence properly.
So he is also open to the possibility that KJ is not reading the evidence properly meaning that KJ is not a liar.However, I think that it is better to say “either you are not not being truthful in this issue” … Why? Because a liar is someone who practices lies, not a person who tells a lie. Just as a fisherman is someone who practices fishing as opposed to someone who caught a fish.
I also think that there are more than 2 options, so that if KJ is reading the sentence, there could be another reason besides lying that leads him to take the stance he has. One example could be that KJ is not understanding the evidence.
In saying this, I also acknowledge that KJ is perhaps not admitting to the facts presented, (which I can relate to in my experience) leading Mike to say that this action could be dishonest.
Mike is calling you out on this KJ, so you should respond with an explanation as to why you are ignoring his evidence.
Honesty does go a long way.
If you did that in the first place, then such dialog could have been avoided.
t8,Is the quote by Mikeboll below appropriate for a moderator?
Quote You sir, have either misread the question, or are a LIAR. And I prefer to not engage in scriptural discussions with LIARS. It is NOT appropriate at all. We have also presented our evidence and some scholars say that it is NOT grammatically possible to to translate 1:1c 'a god.' I am not a scholar by no means but I did take two years of Greek in College and have studied it after that for several years. So I am educated enough in Greek to compare scholars and to make an educated decision. Mike is essentially saying that if we don't agree with the scholars that side with him, then we are liars. I don't care if Mike calls me a liar though his double standard makes me want to puke. He has tiled me for doing the same thing.
What upsets me is that Mike is calling my friend Keith a liar. Keith was enjoying a good reputation here while little Mikey was still feeding on his mommy's bosoms.
I know how to read between the lines t8. Mike called Keith a liar. A moderator should not even insinuate that a poster is a liar. People who make educated decisions on which grammarian to go with are not liars! Mike is just acting like the school yard bully.
You once said that you are against everything that causes division in the body. Your forum causes division in the body. Ergo….
KJ
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2011,16:32) However, I think that it is better to say “either you are not not being truthful in this issue” … Why? Because a liar is someone who practices lies, not a person who tells a lie. Just as a fisherman is someone who practices fishing as opposed to someone who caught a fish.
Fair enough.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,18:34) We have also presented our evidence and some scholars say that it is NOT grammatically possible to to translate 1:1c 'a god.'
Jack,You have produced no such evidence, because none exists.
But check out Kathi's answer to the same question, from the “God among gods” thread:
Quote Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2011,19:37) Mike, Mike, Mike,
Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion. Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible.
Praise Jah! Two weeks I've been asking. Kathi comes back, and within ONE DAY she is able to give the ONLY POSSIBLE answer to the question!Take note D, and Keith and Jack and Mark! See how it's done?
Thanks Kathi, and I assure you that you can Google either one of these guys and view the accolades and professorships and awards, etc. that they've been given. Btw, neither of them think “a god” is the way to go. In fact, Harris opines that “a god” is contextually impossible because it would promote polytheism. Nevertheless, there is no Greek rule of grammar prohibiting “a god”, which makes it completely grammatically possible. And that is rung #1. Once these “Jesus is God” people decide to answer the same question as honestly and directly as you did, we'll start the “race to the top of the ladder”.
If they don't answer after a couple of more days, I'll just write my own essay about it, and post it.
peace and love,
mikeDo you get it Jack? I was never asking if you AGREE with these scholars. I was asking if THEY said it was possible. And considering the green words containing what THEY clearly said were right there above the question, there is ONLY ONE HONEST ANSWER. Which is why I said Keith was either misreading it, or “not being truthful in this issue”.
mike
You're a moderator Mike. Set the example. You're always yelling and screaming in huge lettering and now you're calling people liars. Mature adults don't scream all the time Mike. Your yelling and sreaming accomplishes nothing but to make you look like a baby.
Do you honestly think that guests who visit here will be favorably impressed by your constant screaming and calling people liars? No they won't. They'll say, “This man is a moderator???” You need to visit other discussion boards and see how compotent moderators act.
You need to worry about yourself, and not me.
When will you answer my question with the only HONEST answer, Jack?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 22 2011,11:34) t8, Is the quote by Mikeboll below appropriate for a moderator?
Quote You sir, have either misread the question, or are a LIAR. And I prefer to not engage in scriptural discussions with LIARS.
Yes it is appropriate.Why?
First off it is appropriate to not want to discuss scripture with liars. Especially considering that scripture is truth from God.
2) Is it appropriate to say “You sir, have either misread the question, or are a LIAR.” Because it is entirely possible that you misread the question and he allowed for that possibility.
The real question at hand KJ is which one is it? Have you told a lie or have you misread the question? Or is it some other excuse?
It would be good to get an answer seen as how you are opening this up for scrutiny. Please do not avoid this, so we can sort this matter out.
Mike said:
Quote You know what Keith, I don't care anymore whether or not you agree. Who are YOU? I'm having the discussion without you right now anyway. I'd much rather talk to the honest person of Kathi. Because even when we disagree, it is still an HONEST discussion.
Mike,Kathi and you agree that Jesus was literally begotten. This basic agreement makes for a more favorable tenor in all your discussions even when you disagree. But because you disagree with Keith and I on this the whole dynamic changes.
Keith has been carrying himself here with MANY anti-trinitarians for a very long time and you are the FIRST to consistently slander him.
Listen to yourself Jack.
I have been slandered here by you at least 20 or 30 times. And each time we've looked in to your accusation of my deception, we always seem to inadvertently find where YOU were deceptive. Jack, I have never:
1. Lied on HN
2. Tried to be deceptive
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at handYet you slander me all the time. You did it today by insinuating I had left something out of my quotes of Greek scholars. But I didn't.
Now t8 has offered you the opportunity to put your money where your big mouth is, and instead of taking that opportunity, you post more drivel.
Make your case or pipe down about it. I've done nothing except to call a spade a spade.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at hand
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
You didn't answer the question.
WJ
“In the third place, in the NT theos (like kurios) is virtually a proper name and consequently shares the imprecision with regard to the use of the article that seems to mark all proper names.
“It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to maintain that whenever theos is anarthrous it differs from ho theos in meaning or emphasis.” (Pp. 37-38; capital and underline emphasis ours)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/john1_1_eb.htm
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR CALLING SOMEONE A “LIAR” AND “DISONEST” SLANDERING HIS NAME OVER THE WORLD WIDE INTERNET! JEHOVAH IS PAYING ATTENTION!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,06:48) Mike, Kathi and you agree that Jesus was literally begotten. This basic agreement makes for a more favorable tenor in all your discussions even when you disagree. But because you disagree with Keith and I on this the whole dynamic changes.
Keith has been carrying himself here with MANY anti-trinitarians for a very long time and you are the FIRST to consistently slander him.
Down boy.Try to keep it civilized aye.
Blessed are the peace makers, and yes we can call a spade a spade. But there is no need for this KJ.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,06:51) t8, See my post above. Call off your dog! Hasn't Keith been slandered enough even for you?
KJ
KJ.I love dogs but I do not have any because I travel a lot and it is too inconvenient to have a dog.
My favorite dog is the Afghan Hound BTW.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 25 2011,04:10) THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR CALLING SOMEONE A “LIAR” AND “DISONEST” SLANDERING HIS NAME OVER THE WORLD WIDE INTERNET! JEHOVAH IS PAYING ATTENTION!
KJ, do you understand the difference between calling someone a liar and pointing out a lie?The former is judging the person, the latter is highlighting an action for the purposes of a resolution.
You are over the top on this KJ.
No one judged WJ as a liar, and if they had, then they would also be implying that WJ was not going to enter the Kingdom of God as no liar has a place there.
I think you are way over the top on this. No one has taken that stance from what I can see.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,02:49) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,20:38)
3. Failed to answer a direct question that was related to the topic at handAccording to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
You didn't answer the question.
WJ
KJ, adding a trinity of emoticons doesn't somehow make you post right and Mike's wrong.It does nothing but show your spirit regarding this topic.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,20:16) Not only that, but I've answered the question……….twice now. mike
MikeHave you actually said “NO”, because if you have then I sure haven't seen it. According to Dr Mantey it is not “grammatically permissable” to translate John 1:1c as “a god”.
Do you agree with his conclusion Mike? Yes or No?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
