- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,13:46) 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
If it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,14:07) 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”.
MikeHow do you know this Mike? Are you a Greek scholar now? OK, if it is “grammatically possible” then show me how it is “Grammatically possible” to add the “a” to the verses I quoted that are referring to the “One True God” without changing the overall theme of scriptures.
If you can't show me how it is grammatically possible that you can do that then how can you say it is “grammatically possible”?
You are simply playing word games again Mike. If you are being honest you know you can't translate those verses that way “grammatically or textually”, why because the facts are “Grammatically” the verses should be anarthrous.
If we take your view then that would mean you have no concrete evidence at all the Father is the One True God, do you? How can we be sure of any translation and its grammar if it is open to contradictions and ambiguity?
What I find amazing is how often you use “hypothetical” scenarios to prove your points. Theory and opinions are not facts Mike?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 20 2011,06:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,13:46) 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
If it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible.WJ
Keith,First, there is no definite article before the words “monogenes” and “theos” in John 1:18. So by Mike's law of possibilities we should translate it,
“No man has comprehended A God at any time, AN only begotten A God who is at the Father's side, He has explained Him.”
When applying Mike's law to John 1:18 the statement becomes unintelligible. How can a translation be “grammatically possible” if it is unintelligible? Grammar exists to make statements intelligible.
It is not possible to translate “monogenes” and “theos” as indefinite. To do so would mean that Jesus is AN only begotten of A God. Jesus cannot be ONLY begotten if He is AN only begotten. This is unintelligible and therefore not grammatically possible. Grammar exists to make statements intelligible.
Second, the definite article appears before “monogenes” and “theos” in John 3:18,
“But whoever does not believe is condemned already because he does not believe in the name of THE only begotten Son of THE God.”
Mike erroneously assumes that the definite article was the only way koine Greek could express the definitive. By this Mike reveals that he is a novice. The definitive could be communicated by the NOMINATIVE case without the definite article or a declined form of words with the article. Novice Mike does not know this!
In John 1:18 the definite articles are absent before “monogenes” and “theos. ” But they are definite because both words are written in the NOMINATIVE case.
In John 3:18 the article must appear before “monogenes” and “theos” because they are written in a declined case form.
TWO WAYS OF WRITING THE DEFINITIVE:
1. The nominative CASE (article not needed).
2. A declined case form (article needed).
Mike's self made law of possibilities therefore fails because when pushed he won't be able to maintain it consistently..
Jack
WJ said to Mike:
Quote What I find amazing is how often you use “hypothetical” scenarios to prove your points. Theory and opinions are not facts Mike? 
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,13:37) If we take your view then that would mean you have no concrete evidence at all the Father is the One True God, do you? How can we be sure of any translation and its grammar if it is open to contradictions and ambiguity?
And that's the whole point, Keith. When translating ANY writing from a language that does not use an indefinite article into a language that does, everything is up to interpretation and context. But interpretation and context is based upon MAN'S opinion and conjecture. So none of it is cut and dry.Based on grammar alone, John 1:6 most definitely can say, “There came a man sent from A God, whose name was John.” There is no rule prohibiting this translation. NONE WHATSOEVER!
But because of the context of the rest of the scriptures, and the fact that “a God” could mean this god's name was John in this sentence, it is absolutely CONTEXTUALLY UNFEASABLE to translate 1:6 as “a god”. But it is NOT, I repeat, NOT GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so. The words allow for it. The rules of Greek and English grammar allow for it. It is therefore GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE even though contextually a catastophe.
This is a fairly simple reasoning I'm trying to convey, Keith. Grammatically POSSIBLE does not equal “THE CORRECT TRANSLATION”. You can disagree all you want with an “a god” rendering in both 1:1 AND 1:6 – but your disagreement does nothing to change the FACT that “a god” is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE in both verses.
“Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god”.
Keith, according to the above green words from Harris, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to render John 1:1c as “the word was a god”? YES or NO?
And read my posts before responding, will ya? You have responded here about “changing the theme” when I've already addressed that in the post you responded to. I said: “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 have likewise responded to points I've already addressed in your response to my post in your new poll, which I will address now on that thread.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 19 2011,14:18)
When applying Mike's law to John 1:18 the statement becomes unintelligible.
Why is that, Jack? Does “my law” say the indefinite article absolutely MUST be added anytime it's possible to add it?
Btw, adding it in 1:1c does not make the verse “unitelligible”. It only makes the verse not to your liking.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 19 2011,14:18)
Mike's self made law of possibilities therefore fails because when pushed he won't be able to maintain it aconsistently..
Again, “my law” does not say the “a” must ALWAYS be added. It says the “a” CAN be added. Permitting and demanding are two different things, o great Greek scholar Jack.And does this sound like it's “Mike's SELF MADE law”?
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.”
Jack, would you say that YOU know more about Greek than these accomplised and published experts?
Jack, I'm used to you being the class clown and court jester of HN. I'm used to you posting many inflammatory things, and posting things that don't actually address the point in question, but seem to make you “sound smart”. But I am deeply saddened and utterly disapointed that Keith would choose to follow your assinine path. It was a great loss to HN when the most honest and educated and passionate Trinitarian here decided to become a court jester and a clown like you instead of scripturally and intelligently carrying on a discussion.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 19 2011,14:21) WJ said to Mike: Quote What I find amazing is how often you use “hypothetical” scenarios to prove your points. Theory and opinions are not facts Mike?
Right you are, Keith.And this can be proven by the THEORY that 1:1c shouldn't have the “a” is not the FACT that 1:1c CAN'T have the “a”.
The OPINION that 1:1c shouldn't be translated as “the word was a god” is not to be confused with any “FACT” that 1:1c CANNOT be translated as “the word was a god”.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,16:14) And that's the whole point, Keith. When translating ANY writing from a language that does not use an indefinite article into a language that does, everything is up to interpretation and context. But interpretation and context is based upon MAN'S opinion and conjecture. So none of it is cut and dry.
So you say, but where is your proof of this. Lets see your credentials. Prove that the hundreds even thousands of scholars signed of on John 1:1 being translated as anarthrous knowing that it is “ambiguous”.WJ
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?
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
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 20 2011,06:12) If it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible. WJ
If God is a HIM, then how can HE be three people. HE would have to be THEM. It is not grammatically possible to call a substance of 3 persons HIM.Therefore if it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible according to your standard.
YHWH is not persons. He is one.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2011,03:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 20 2011,06:12) If it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible. WJ
If God is a HIM, then how can HE be three people. HE would have to be THEM. It is not grammatically possible to call a substance of 3 persons HIM.Therefore if it is not grammatically correct then it is not grammatically possible according to your standard.
YHWH is not persons. He is one.
Than again Genesis mentions Elohim (Which is plural) talking about making man in “our” image.Now is it possible?
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
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,17:49) Than again Genesis mentions Elohim (Which is plural) talking about making man in “our” image. Now is it possible?
Only if it's possible for God to talk to someone else.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 20 2011,08:44) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,16:14) And that's the whole point, Keith. When translating ANY writing from a language that does not use an indefinite article into a language that does, everything is up to interpretation and context. But interpretation and context is based upon MAN'S opinion and conjecture. So none of it is cut and dry.
So you say, but where is your proof of this. Lets see your credentials. Prove that the hundreds even thousands of scholars signed of on John 1:1 being translated as anarthrous knowing that it is “ambiguous”.WJ
Keith,The part in red bold is another symptom of a man who has been backed into the corner. When a man can't prove his case he will either say that the scripture is not authentic like Mike has done with Matthew 28:19. Or he will say that the scriptures are ambiguous like Mike has implied by saying, “So none of it is cut and dry.”
You're winning BIG Keith! You've got Mike saying that “none of it (the scriptures) are cut and dry.”
Keep up the fine work my friend.
Jack
Hi Jack,
This is from the “God among gods” thread. I posted this to Dennison earlier today:
Quote So what we have here is ONE person who is so sure that the scriptures hold the truth, that he doesn't have to use diversions and distractions and dishonesty to “prove” his doctrine. And we have THREE Trinitarians on the other thread who have been doing all of those things that I don't have to do. I'm not trying to “be right”, D. I'm trying to be HONEST, and let the word of God teach me. When someone starts from a position of being so afraid that an honest answer might jeopardize their “stronghold”, and so they must be deceptive or dishonest or diversive, then what does that really say about that person AND their “strong doctrine”?
If Keith was doing such “fine work”, then he would have honestly answered my simple question weeks ago. There is only ONE honest answer to it, and “NO” is not that one honest answer. On the other hand, if you are commending him on doing the things I've bolded in my quote above, then you are right. He IS doing “fine work” in those areas.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 20 2011,17:48) Keith, The part in red bold is another symptom of a man who has been backed into the corner.
Admitting that many translations of scripture are not “cut and dry” is only admitting truth, Jack. Take any single verse in the entire Bible and show me two translations that word them the same exact way in English. My guess it that they are few and far between. Then check to see how many verses that EVERY English Bible words the exact same way. My guess is that you won't find any at all.What REALLY is a symptom of a man who has been backed into the corner is LYING through his teeth in the face of cold hard facts that contradict his lie. That's the REAL tell-tale symptom.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,10:48) You're winning BIG Keith! You've got Mike saying that “none of it (the scriptures) are cut and dry.”
I can't believe that you really believe that he is winning big. Give me a break.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
