- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2013,21:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,09:02)
David, this stuff is related………
It's really not related. This topic isn't “the trinity” where you can discuss 1000 different scriptures.
Who's talking about the Trinity?
Listen:
Statement: The Coptic translation has “a god” in John 1:1c.
Standard reply: It must be a flawed translation, because there exists only ONE god in all of scripture.
My response: Let me show you that there truly ARE many gods and many lords, just like Paul said there were. Let me show you that Jesus is called “god” in at least five scriptures. And then maybe you'll be able to see that the Word was “a god” who was with “THE god” in the beginning.
You see? It IS all related.
Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2013,21:58) Finding someone who speaks ancient Coptic or koine Greek is impossible.
Current Greek still doesn't use an indefinite article. And Greek speaking people understand that John 1:1 speaks of TWO gods – one of whom was WITH the other.Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2013,22:19) I'd actually like to comment on this but the two links, it doesn't seem like you are really discussing this topic in those threads any more.
Those links take you to threads where I am teaching about the existence of many gods – just like the scriptures clearly taught me. After coming to believe that there do indeed exist many gods, and that Jesus is one of them, accepting the Coptic “a god” translation will come naturally.It's all linked together.
Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2013,21:48) Several times in the past two years I've said that John 1:1 could go either way grammatically, and that it's bias one way or the other that determines the translation.
That's not exactly true, David.Yes, we can grammatically ADD the definite article “the”, making the translation say, “and the Word was God”. (Take notes ED J, because a translation of “God” – with a capital “G” – means that the definite article was ADDED. “THE god” in Greek = “God” in English.)
And we can grammatically add the indefinite article “a”, which neither the Hebrew nor the Greek languages used – which is why “a” is added into English Bibles over 7000 times. (Take a note ED J – the Hebrew and Greek languages DID have the definite article – which means John COULD HAVE used it in part c – IF he wanted to. On the other hand, he didn't even have a CHANCE to use the indefinite article, since the Greek language didn't have one.
So it actually DOES take BIAS to ADD a definite article where it is not required by context – OVERULING the choice of the original author, who COULD HAVE used it, but purposely chose NOT to.
But it DOESN'T take bias to add an indefinite article where NEEDED – just as it is added into scripture where needed over 7000 other times – because the original author didn't even have the choice of using it.)
But David, the context should eliminate any bias when adding the “a”. I mean, what are the choices?
A. The only and only God Almighty was WITH the one and only God Almighty in the beginning – but then was made flesh and died?
B. The Word was a god who was with THE god in the beginning – but then was made flesh and died?
I don't think doing the only sensible and logical thing should be considered a “bias”.
Quote But it DOESN'T take bias to add an indefinite article where NEEDED – –mike
Off topic, but I don't think you understand what I said.
Of course it doesn't take bias to add the article where needed. But that's the whole question isn't it?
If you already believe in a trinity, it isn't needed…in fact, it must be rejected.
If you are anti-trinity, it seems needed. Mike, a trinitarian could say the exact same thing you did, but in reverse. That's my point. Grammatically it can go either way. But people start with their bias and argue from there.Quote I don't think doing the only sensible and logical thing should be considered a “bias”. –mike.
Of course it shouldn't. And a trinitarian would say the same thing. To a trinitarian who believes there are countless trinity scriptures, it's very logical to translate the scripture in line with those perceived trinity scriptures.
I understand that using normal logic, it should have an “a.” But IF god is a trinity, then it wouldn't need the “a.” What is sensible to you isn't to them and what is sensible to them isn't to you.
Why? Because of bias, the understanding of the rest of scripture.
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 26 2013,17:55) Hi David and especially T8: So much for trying to build doctrine on the Sahidic Coptic for John 1:1
“John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation “God the only Son”” (Link)
It is therefore bias to proclaim John 1:1 any differently than in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed. I dont think you have researched this very much. People are just copying and pasting the same material without thinking about it very hard. Perhaps look at the scripture that is being quoted. See what it says in full. Look at it in the KJ even. Then come back and use logic to present some sort of rational case.Quote (david @ Nov. 27 2013,16:35) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 26 2013,17:55) Hi David and especially T8: So much for trying to build doctrine on the Sahidic Coptic for John 1:1
“John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation “God the only Son”” (Link)
It is therefore bias to proclaim John 1:1 any differently than in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed. I dont think you have researched this very much. People are just copying and pasting the same material without thinking about it very hard. Perhaps look at the scripture that is being quoted. See what it says in full. Look at it in the KJ even. Then come back and use logic to present some sort of rational case.
Taken from your link:“the Coptic translators would hardly have called the Word “a god” in 1:1c and “the God” just 18 verses later. It is far more likely that they understood 'noute' in 1:1c to signify that the Word had the quality of God.”
YES! They wouldn't have done that. AND THEY DIDNT!
Read verse 18 in full in the kj and other bibles.
David,
I am not sure where I obtained the fourth century date and I have been unable to actually find a date. That are Sahidic Scripture manuscripts as far back as the 2nd Century.
To all,
Another verse from Horner's work.
Quote 1:13 ΝΑΙ ΝϨЄΝЄΒΟλ ΑΝ ΝЄ ϨΝ ΟΥѠϢ ΝСΝΟϤ ϨΙ СΑΡξ. ΟΥΔЄ ЄΒΟλ ΑΝ ϨΜ ΠΟΥѠϢ ΝΡѠΜЄ. ΑλλΑ ΝΤΑΥϪΠΟΟΥ ЄΒΟλ ϨΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. These were not out of want of blood and flesh, nor out of the want of Man, but rather it was from God that they were begotten.
John 1:13
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Note: Coptic John1:1-14
Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2013,23:26) Quote But it DOESN'T take bias to add an indefinite article where NEEDED – –mike
Off topic, but I don't think you understand what I said.
Of course it doesn't take bias to add the article where needed. But that's the whole question isn't it?
If you already believe in a trinity, it isn't needed…in fact, it must be rejected.
If you are anti-trinity, it seems needed. Mike, a trinitarian could say the exact same thing you did, but in reverse. That's my point. Grammatically it can go either way. But people start with their bias and argue from there.
David,Read my parenthesized words to Ed a little more closely.
The Greek language DID have a definite article. That means John COULD HAVE used the definite article in part c………. IF he wanted to.
And make no mistake about it – translating as “and the Word was God“ in English means that we have ADDED the definite article into the Greek. Because “God” for us means “THE god” for John. Do you understand that? So the Trinitarians ADD a definite article into John's words when John himself could have WRITTEN the definite article if he chose to do so.
On the other hand, John had no CHANCE of adding an indefinite article – because one didn't even exist in his language.
So suppose that Greek DID use an indefinite article, and John just CHOSE not to use it in part c. If that were the case, it would show a clear BIAS on my part to add that indefinite article – CONTRARY to John's wishes.
And that's what the Trinitarians did. They ADDED the definite article “THE” into John's words – CONTRARY to his wishes.
You can't say that I add the indefinite article CONTRARY to John's wishes – since he didn't even have the chance to add it himself.
Let me give you an analogy. Let's say my Russian friend who speaks broken English said these words to me: Mike, today I go to buy car from man.
Now, would it be BIAS on my part to relate what he said to you as, David, today my friend is going to buy A car from A man ? YES or NO?
Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2013,23:26) Quote But it DOESN'T take bias to add an indefinite article where NEEDED – –mike
Off topic, but I don't think you understand what I said.
And NO! This is NOT “off topic”.We are talking about “a god” in John 1:1c. Anything related to that, such as there existing many gods, is on topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
