- This topic is empty.
- Posts
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
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2011,17:52) 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.
t8But according to the scriptures it is “grammatically” possible for 2 to be 1 flesh, right?
It is grammatically correct for “many” to be One Body or “One Bride”, isn't it?
It is grammatically correct for YHVH to say “let us make man in our image” so “God” created man in his own image male and female created He – THEM.
Adam and Eve were one makind, right? You should accept all the scritpures t8.
So it is grammatically correct that God can be “us” and a “him” for God has a kind, it is called the “Godkind” and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God, scriptures say so do they not?
WJ
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
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,14:01) 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
Hey JackI have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
WJ
Keith said;
Quote Hey Jack I have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
Keith,I am talking about the double standard and not about your being called dishonest.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,14:23) Keith said; Quote Hey Jack I have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
Keith,I am talking about the double standard and not about your being called dishonest.
Jack
JackIt won't matter. Mike is t8s hit man, IMO!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,07:38) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 21 2011,14:23) Keith said; Quote Hey Jack I have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
Keith,I am talking about the double standard and not about your being called dishonest.
Jack
JackIt won't matter. Mike is t8s hit man, IMO!
WJ
On second thought let Mike have his puny little insignificant status. He hasn't changed squat.On the freak Greek thread he said that he has successfully disproven that Jesus is God. Yet he claimed a scripture is not authentic and now says in reference to Greek grammar that “none of it is cut and dry.” Ergo, he has NOT disproven that Jesus is God from the scripture.
Jack
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,18:24) someone else who doesnt exist? to whom?
To the one who was with God in the beginning and the one by whom he created everything through perhaps.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,01:59) t8 But according to the scriptures it is “grammatically” possible for 2 to be 1 flesh, right?
Yes and that is more support as to why scripture applies theos/elohim to others.But identities do not change. Adam is Adam and Eve is Eve who is qualitatively adam and not Adam himself.
The Father is identified as the only true God and theos/elohim is applied to the sons of the Most High for example.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,07:38) Jack It won't matter. Mike is t8s hit man, IMO!
WJ
Mike.Get WJ.
I want him taken out.
Once he is taken out, please pick up our pay cheque.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,06:19) Hey Jack I have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
WJ
Have I said you are a liar?
Where?If I think someone is being dishonest in a matter I will say so. But I don't pass final judgement and say that someone is a liar.
A liar is someone who practices lying and has no place in the Kingdom of God.
You need to read posts more carefully WJ, you do come to quite a number of false conclusions and this aptly demonstrates what I am talking about.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2011,17:24) Mike. Get WJ.
I want him taken out.
You want me to “rub him out”? “Fit him for cement boots”? “Put him to sleep with the fishes”? Consider it done, Bugsy.Keith and Jack, I'm not allowed to say “liar” anymore, but check out this example I posted for D in the “God among gods” thread:
Quote Here's a fake example: Keith says, “Mike, Dennison is really smart.”
Then Kathi says, “Jack, ACCORDING TO KEITH'S WORDS ABOVE, is Dennison really smart?”
And then Jack says, “NO! NO! NO! Because I don't personally think he's smart, therefore the answer to your question, Kathi, is NO!”
Do you get the point? The question never was if Jack thought you were smart. The question was does KEITH think you're smart, ACCORDING TO THE WORDS HE SAID. Get it?
This is like my question to you guys. I'm not asking if you AGREE with these scholars. I'm only asking if THEY said “a god” is possible. And if you read THEIR words, it is clear that THEY said it is. So the ONLY HONEST ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS “YES”. Therefore, your answers of “NO” is a matter of you both being “untruthful on this issue”. Simple as that.
mike
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,06:19) Hey Jack I have, but I doubt t8 will do anything even though he disagrees with the JWs and Mikes arthrous rendering of John 1:1C.
T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest.
It's Ok because I know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is.
WJ
Have I said you are a liar?
Where?If I think someone is being dishonest in a matter I will say so. But I don't pass final judgement and say that someone is a liar.
A liar is someone who practices lying and has no place in the Kingdom of God.
You need to read posts more carefully WJ, you do come to quite a number of false conclusions and this aptly demonstrates what I am talking about.
t8Do you have a comprehension problem?
Read my words again.Did I say “You called me a liar'?
No I said…“T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest”.
Who is the one with the false conclusion?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,22:35) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2011,17:24) Mike. Get WJ.
I want him taken out.
You want me to “rub him out”? “Fit him for cement boots”? “Put him to sleep with the fishes”? Consider it done, Bugsy.Keith and Jack, I'm not allowed to say “liar” anymore, but check out this example I posted for D in the “God among gods” thread:
Quote Here's a fake example: Keith says, “Mike, Dennison is really smart.”
Then Kathi says, “Jack, ACCORDING TO KEITH'S WORDS ABOVE, is Dennison really smart?”
And then Jack says, “NO! NO! NO! Because I don't personally think he's smart, therefore the answer to your question, Kathi, is NO!”
Do you get the point? The question never was if Jack thought you were smart. The question was does KEITH think you're smart, ACCORDING TO THE WORDS HE SAID. Get it?
This is like my question to you guys. I'm not asking if you AGREE with these scholars. I'm only asking if THEY said “a god” is possible. And if you read THEIR words, it is clear that THEY said it is. So the ONLY HONEST ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS “YES”. Therefore, your answers of “NO” is a matter of you both being “untruthful on this issue”. Simple as that.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,22:35) This is like my question to you guys. I'm not asking if you AGREE with these scholars.
MikeAnd that’s not true is it? Because you also said this…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,20:08) Once we're all in agreement on this CLEAR, UNDENIABLE, and IRREFUTABLE FACT, I will answer any of your questions you ask during the course of our discussion about the CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT rendering of 1:1c, okay?
So it is not a matter of us disagreeing with them but to you we have to agree that what they said is fact, even though it is an “opinion” of a couple of scholars whose final conclusions are not “grammatically” in favor of the NWT.We will wait and see how you respond to the evidence that it is not “grammatically” possible to translate John 1:1c as indefinite.
Are you going to apologize (again) for insinuating I am a liar?
WJ
Keith said to Mike:
Quote Are you going to apologize (again) for insinuating I am a liar? If Mike don't apologize I'll give him two BIG tiles with his initials engraved on them.
Ah, but you DID “be untruthful on this issue”, didn't you?
Because the words were there saying YES, and all I asked was if those very words said YES.
Yet somehow, you managed to say NO.
You could have said, “YES Mike, but look at these quotes from people who disagree”, or something like that. At least you would have answered my question HONESTLY if you had done that.
Listen Keith, many trinitarians of OF THE OPINION that “a god” in 1:1c is preposterous. But not one of them will come right out and claim it as GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, because it isn't. John 8:44 has a similar structure, yet we translate it as “A liar”. It says “liar eimi”, while 1:1c says “god eimi”. Why could we say “A liar he was” and not say “A god he was”?
Anyway, the scholars I quoted have more than enough credentials to prove the grammatical possibility of “a god”. Add those guys to the Coptic version (AS SUPPORTED BY THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FROM THE COPTIC) and to the lack of any particular rule of Greek or English grammar that prohibits it, and it's a done deal.
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
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,21:48) Because the words were there saying YES, and all I asked was if those very words said YES.
That was not all you asked and you are not telling the whole truth because your original question that I answered yes to was not the same was it Mike?Why do you keep misrepresenting me?
My answer is still “NO” Mike and if you think that is dishonest then so be it but I think if you are honest you would not be accusing me of being dishonest.
I have a source that disagrees with your source that it is not “grammatically permissable” to be translated as “a God” and if it is not permissable then it it not possible and my source explains why.
But you seem to have rejected that and now you are not honest enough to answer my question and instead run around beating your chest and calling me dishonest.
You are a real case man.
WJ
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.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,03:17) t8 Do you have a comprehension problem? Read my words again.
Did I say “You called me a liar'?
No I said…”T8 has all but called me a liar by inferring I am dishonest”.
Who is the one with the false conclusion?
WJ
No I don't have a comprehension problem that I know of.Great.
So “all but” means I haven't.We can move on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
