- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (seekingtruth @ June 28 2010,06:23) You know what they say, If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then buffalo them with bull….
Boy, I like that…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2010,14:46) Hey All! I just thought of a better analogy for what KJ is trying in our debate. I was calling it the “everything at the speed of light” attack. But I'm going to change that to the “Scooby Doo” attack.
At the beginning of each episode of Scooby Doo, the place really seems haunted, because all of the villain’s tricks are thrown at you all at once. But in the end, after the meddling kids and their dog capture the villain, Velma explains step by step how the villain made things that were not real appear as if they were. It always comes down to wires supported from the ceiling, smoke, mirrors, projectors, and fake doors.
This is how Jack and WJ like to debate. They use all of the Scooby Doo villain's tricks at once. But when you corner them, remove the mask, and, like Velma, break the charade down step by step, every bit of their trinity reasoning, which they say is supported by scripture and God, is revealed to be nothing but the parlor tricks of mere men using smoke and mirrors.
peace and love,
mike Quote (t8 @ June 27 2010,23:55) I've pretty much seen it all. Another method is when a poster posts a whole series of stuff in one post and expect you to rebut every point. Not only does the reply often need to be longer, but there is so much stuff in each post that the posters have room to dodge that which stumps them.
I prefer to keep it simple myself. That way you can get to the crux of a matter and find out when people don't have an answer, (including myself). So far people are very good at avoiding this however.
t8 I too agree with you. It makes it really hard to answer all those points. I suggest that posts should have a one point at the time. One subject at the time… I especially dislike nasty and personal attacks, which has been going on with some for some time. I also believe that person should leave after three tiles and not five, it is to long of a period. Also some do not report nasty remarks….
Peace IreneQuote (SimplyForgiven @ July 29 2010,12:47) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,10:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 27 2010,14:56) Quote (Ed J @ July 27 2010,05:41) Quote (Ed J @ July 16 2010,23:30) HI SF, That brings up another interesting debate point that is pointless.
Asking loaded questions that are meant for nothing more than an attempt to
entrap someone into unwillingly agree to something that they clearly don't willingly agree to!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi SF,How could you say this type of entrapment is OK?
I never said it was ok. I said it was being smart. like when david made a thread of ten questions about the holy spirit and aboutwj comment. he asked ten questions that were the same thing. it was of course an entrapment. entrapment are not debate errors, they are aggressive techniques.
Hi SF,Is NOT the goal to convince others to agree to “Bible Truth”?
Rather than to instead entrap them with crafty wording?Think about it!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
ed j,
you need to realize that when it comes to debates people have tactics. these tactics are just ways to persuade or trick a person into answering a question. in the end only God can persuade. we are talking about debate errors in this thread, not moral errors.
the debate formats I offered help two people discuss and debate so people can see what they agree or not, so they could agree
You are right, it happened to me…. Not so nice…Irene17) Explaination Fallacy: Is when a Poster decides to give explainations to prove his point without any proof to back up what he says.
Example:
A) John1:1 was speaking of the beginning of the gospel because who those surrender to Christ no longer live, but Chirst live in them.
B) You made not connection between what Paul and John says? In fact, what your saying has nothing to do with the context?
Where is your proofffff?
???Yeah D,
I like that one. I'll give another example:
From Trinitarian and Greek expert Murray J. Harris: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god”.
From Trinitarian and Greek expert C. H. Dodd: “….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.”
From Greek expert Dr. Jason BeDuhn: “In fact the Kindom Interlinear Translation explanation [of translating 1:1c as 'a god'] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.”
The question: Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
From “Greek expert” Keith: “NO”.
From “Greek expert” Jack: “NO”.
From “Greek expert” mikeangel: “NO”.WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF THIS, GUYS? I have asked for it multiple times, but have been shown none.
What does “Greek expert” Dennison say to this question?
mike
Mike
Grammar also includes context.
Your sources are still Trinitarian which means their conclusion on John 1:1 is that it should be anarthrous for reasons like Polytheism.
Here is your proof Mike. Over a 100 translations render the verse arthrous and the conclusion is settled by 100s of Biblical Greek scholars translating it that way!
You have proven nothing.
WJ
Actually the fact that they ARE Trinitarians who definitely PREFER the arthrous translation is even more telling. Because even as they PREFFER “the Word was God”, and consider the “a god” translation to be monsterous, they are still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that the Greek words allow for the latter translation.
You apparently are NOT. And if I have “proven nothing” else, I have at least proven that.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,10:37) Actually the fact that they ARE Trinitarians who definitely PREFER the arthrous translation is even more telling. Because even as they PREFFER “the Word was God”, and consider the “a god” translation to be monsterous, they are still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that the Greek words allow for the latter translation. You apparently are NOT. And if I have “proven nothing” else, I have at least proven that.
mike
MikeNo Mike, if they thought it could be translated that way then why didn't they? You cannot prove that all those scholars signed off on something by being bias. That is rather arrogant of you.
One of them admitted that Polytheism is the reason it shouldn't be translated that way and that means his conclusion is it should be anarthrous.
You see Mike, it could be they are Trinitarians because they can understand Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Where are all the anti-Trin scholars with any credentials?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,10:37) Actually the fact that they ARE Trinitarians who definitely PREFER the arthrous translation is even more telling. Because even as they PREFFER “the Word was God”, and consider the “a god” translation to be monsterous, they are still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that the Greek words allow for the latter translation. You apparently are NOT. And if I have “proven nothing” else, I have at least proven that.
mike
MikeYou accuse me of being dishonest and that is a lie.
I believe the conclusion is it cannot grammatically be translated any other way and remain true to the context of scriptures.
The translations are proof of that as well as the scholarly support.
You have a few scattered opinions whos conclusion is the same that it should be anarthrous.
Why are you lying against me? I answered you with my answer based on the evidence that far outways yours.
If you call me a liar again Mike I will report it.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,10:28) Mike No Mike, if they thought it could be translated that way then why didn't they?
The fact they didn't translate it that way does not mean it CAN'T BE translated that way, Keith.Acts 28:6
The 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.This verse can also be translated as “he was God”. We know from the context that the “was God” translation is unlikely. But we know from the Greek experts that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
CONTEXT is something different from GRAMMAR, Keith. Context tells us which translation, OUT OF THE MANY GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITIES, is the logical one. But context does NOT exclude any of the other translations from being grammatically possible.
We are off topic here. Answer my last post in the “Freak Greek” thread, and we'll continue this discussion over there.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,12:53) The fact they didn't translate it that way does not mean it CAN'T BE translated that way, Keith.
MikeOf course it can be translated that way, the NWT is proof of that. But is it “Grammatically” correct?
To me and the conclusive actions of the 1000s it means it can't be translated as arthrous.
To you it should be translated the way a bunch of non scholar JWs on the JW translating committee of the NWT wrongly translates it and makes the Bible into a Polytheistic book. t8 himself disagrees with adding the “definite” or “indefinite” article. You are all alone and hanging on the oppinions of a few that still rendered the verse anarthrous.
WJ
18) Possibility Fallacy: Is When a poster claims just because an aspect is possible, which means it COULD be true, NOT THAT IT IS.
Therefore the fallacy is that Possibilities are not facts.
Example:
A)God could have saved the world by another means other than Jesus Christ, which is possible for God to do so because he is The Almighty.
B)But the FAct is that he DIDNT! SOO though its possible, God chose not to do it that way. So fact is that Jesus is the ONLY WAY the WORLD could be saved because God chose to do so.
A) The article in John 1:1 could mean “word was a god”
b) guess what it isnt, even though its possible.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,12:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,10:28) Mike No Mike, if they thought it could be translated that way then why didn't they?
The fact they didn't translate it that way does not mean it CAN'T BE translated that way, Keith.Acts 28:6
The 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.This verse can also be translated as “he was God”. We know from the context that the “was God” translation is unlikely. But we know from the Greek experts that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
MikeDo you believe Paul was “a god”? Notice they didn't call Paul “their God” and in fact there is not a NT scripture where any follower of Christ refers to men as “their gods” or “a god” is there? Oh thats right Jesus is referred to as “Their God”.
Is it possible that the word “theos” God in referring to the “One True God” can be translated with an “a”?
All you have shown is the word when referring to false gods, or idols of men is one scripture where [a] should be added or it would mean Paul is being referred to as the True God.
What does that prove in relation to John 1:1c in its context?
Nothing!!! The Following scriptures are proof that your contention is false…
Consider these verses from the very same chapter in John’s gospel:
John 1:6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.No one would argue that this John intended to identify God, but there is no article attached to theos in this verse
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,Again the noun “theos” is manifestly definite, but no article here either.
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.Or here! Source
In Light of the scriptures above why did the JWs violate the usual and normal rendering of the noun “theos” (god) as anarthrous in John 1:1?
In the above verses is it grammatically possible that the word “theos” God in referring to the “One True God” can be translated with an “a” or indefinite article?
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,13:12) 18) Possibility Fallacy: Is When a poster claims just because an aspect is possible, which means it COULD be true, NOT THAT IT IS.
Therefore the fallacy is that Possibilities are not facts.
Example:
A)God could have saved the world by another means other than Jesus Christ, which is possible for God to do so because he is The Almighty.
B)But the FAct is that he DIDNT! SOO though its possible, God chose not to do it that way. So fact is that Jesus is the ONLY WAY the WORLD could be saved because God chose to do so.
A) The article in John 1:1 could mean “word was a god”
b) guess what it isnt, even though its possible.
Good points Dennison!WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:12)
A) The article in John 1:1 could mean “word was a god”
Thank you and God bless you, Dennison!You are the first of the “Jesus is God” people to accept the TRUTH that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the word was a god”. The rest will follow, eventually, because they will grow tired of the charades. I see that Keith is inching his way toward the truth of the matter in his statement about the NWT.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:12)
b) guess what it isnt, even though its possible.
That remains to be debated. But as soon as we are all on board that it IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, we can begin debating your OPINION that “it isn't” the correct translation.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,12:07) Mike Of course it can be translated that way, the NWT is proof of that. But is it “Grammatically” correct?
Keith,I have never asked you if it is “grammatically CORRECT”. I've only asked if it was grammatically POSSIBLE.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,23:44) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:12)
A) The article in John 1:1 could mean “word was a god”
Thank you and God bless you, Dennison!You are the first of the “Jesus is God” people to accept the TRUTH that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the word was a god”. The rest will follow, eventually, because they will grow tired of the charades. I see that Keith is inching his way toward the truth of the matter in his statement about the NWT.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:12)
b) guess what it isnt, even though its possible.
That remains to be debated. But as soon as we are all on board that it IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, we can begin debating your OPINION that “it isn't” the correct translation.mike
Actually I didnt admit to anything.
Poster “A)” is a sample debate to prove the fallacy.
poster B is a sample for correting posters A statements.The possibility is yet to be determined.
And i havent even researched the possibility or your claim.
So have really wouldnt know.So in other words, my response would be “I dont know”
Ill put some research into it though.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,12:29) In the above verses is it grammatically possible that the word “theos” God in referring to the “One True God” can be translated with an “a” or indefinite article?
Keith,ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY! That's what I'm trying to tell you! In every scripture you listed, it is a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY to add the indefinite “a”.
I agree that the context dictates that we DON'T add it in these scriptures, but that doesn't mean it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to add it when translating the Greek language, which doesn't use an indefinite article, into the English language, which does.
Will it CHANGE the context? Sure. But that doesn't exclude “a god” as GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE in any scripture you listed. CONTEXTUALLY FEASIBLE is a whole different matter.
You admit it is “possible” because the NWT is proof of this. But you are stuck on saying their translation is GRAMMATICALLY incorrect. That is inaccurate and not true.
You can think their “a god” translation is bogus, preposterous, ridiculous, monotheistec, or whatever you want to think about it. What you can't think is that it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, because that is simply not true. And when you claim inaccurate things out of ignorance, you are not lying. But when you've been shown the truth, and continue to claim those same inaccurate things anyway, it becomes a lie. So just to make sure your are still not ignorant to the facts, I'll post the experts one more time for you. As you read these quotes, try to remember that what I'm asking is if it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE:
“Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god”.
“….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.”
“In fact the Kindom Interlinear Translation explanation [of translating 1:1c as 'a god'] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.“
Keith, “from the point of view of grammar alone”, and “as a word for word translation”, is “the word was a god” a GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:49) So in other words, my response would be “I dont know” Ill put some research into it though.
Oops, sorry. I misunderstood.Please DO put some research into it. You can start with the three scholars I've quoted here. Keith will attest to their credentials, or you can see them for yourself in the “Freak Greek” thread where I posted some of them.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
