- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2009,10:56) Hi TT,
I am not surprised.
You give examples of humans blessing Christ and think that this proves your theories?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 30 2009,04:53) Heaven Net friends,
Titus 2:13 is a direct assertion that Jesus Christ is God,Quote Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ Note this grammatical rule right from the textbook,
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76). The textbook gives Titus 2:13 as an example of this rule,
προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I put the article which comes before “great God” in bold for you. And I also put the Greek “kai” in bold. There is no article before “Savior”. This means that the substantatives “great God” and “Savior” (Jesus Christ) are ONE AND THE SAME.
This is right from the textbook!
Yet the New World translation inserts a second definite article before the word “Savior” to make a distinction between God and Savior.
Quote While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus There is no second definite article before “Savior”. The NWT translators inserted the second article in brackets thus exposing their true agenda.
thinker
On Titus 2:13…Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”?
Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12.
Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.Other Bible's have done the same.
1934 “of the great God and of our The Riverside New
Savior Christ Jesus” Testament,Boston and
New York.
1935 “of the great God and of our A New Translation of the
Saviour Christ Jesus” Bible, by James Moffatt, New
York and London.
1950 “of the great God and of our New World Translation of
Savior Christ Jesus” the Christian Greek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1957 “of the great God and of our La Sainte Bible, by Louis
Savior Jesus Christ” Segond, Paris.
1970 “of the great God and of our The New American Bible,
Savior Christ Jesus” New York and London.
1972 “of the great God and of The New Testament in
Christ Jesus our saviour” Modern English, by
J. B. Phillips, New York.In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in κοινή [koi·ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”
A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguish
ed from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.–NWT, Footnotes.
David's source says:
Quote In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them.
TO ALL:Here is the rule:
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76).
Please note that the rule applies to substantives. The words “buying” and “selling” in Matthew 21:12 are not substantives but participles. So the “grammarian” David invokes above misapplies the rule. Just another example of anti-trinitarian unscholarly scholarship. This is totally laughable!David invoked Henry Alford who said:
Quote “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421 .
But Alford's Greek text and his notes were not esteemed by scholars and are always undergoing revision:
Quote Alford, 1849. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament; with a critically revised Text, a digest of various readings, marginal references to verbal and idiomatic usage, Prolegomena, and a critical and exegetical Commentary. For the use of Theological Students and Ministers. Vol I, containing the four Gospels. London, 1849; 2nd ed., 1854; 3rd ed., 1855. Vol II, containing the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, 1852; 2nd ed., 1855. Vol III, containing Galatians to Philemon, 1856. Vol IV, containing Hebrews to Revelation, 1859 and 1860 (issued in two parts). Alford's volumes were continually under revision, so that eventually the first two reached a seventh edition, while the last two reached only a fifth. The final editions were reprinted together in 1958 by Moody Press, Chicago. The text changes from edition to edition, gradually moving further away from the Received Text until it closely resembles that of Tregelles. In his latest Prolegomena he says, “The text which I have adopted has been constructed by following in all ordinary cases the united or preponderating evidence of the most ancient authorities. . .[while] applying those principles of criticism which appear to furnish sound criteria of a spurious or genuine reading.” (vol 1, page 81). As a statement of such principles he then reprints a section of Griesbach's Prolegomena (for which see Griesbach 1796). In doubtful cases, he says, “I have found of especial service the critical notices prefixed to each chapter in Meyer's Commentary” (page 85, note 4. see Meyer 1883).
Scholars did not much esteem Alford's text and notes, because these were often very unsatisfactory wherever he did not simply follow others. But Alford's work was important nonetheless, because it made available to English students, in convenient and inexpensive form, a great deal of critical and philological lore from the works of the famous German expositors. Therefore it became very popular and was much studied. A collation of Alford's text as it stood in 1871 against Estienne 1550 is given in Newberry 1877.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alford1849CONCLUSION: David invokes a “grammarian” who applies participles to a rule that applies only to substantives. Then he invokes Henry Alford's notes which were not highly esteemed by the scholars of his day.
David also gave a list of translations of Titus 2:13 which really do not contradict the Granville Sharp rule. He is expecting that you will read Titus 2:13 the way he does. David is pretty slick isn't he?
thinker
Hi TT,
Why not dump these self esteemed experts and let scripture teach you?
You say you are a thinker but somehow spend more time quoting other men?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 17 2009,05:12) Hi TT,
Why not dump these self esteemed experts and let scripture teach you?
You say you are a thinker but somehow spend more time quoting other men?
Does your exhortation apply to David too?thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 17 2009,05:16) Hi TT,
This is meant to be a scripture study site but instead men come to brag of their thoughts.
Including you.thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 17 2009,05:37) Hi TT,
Go back to the source.
Trinity is not found in scripture.
Father, Son, Holy Spiritthinker
Hi tt,
So that makes a trinity?
Give it some more THOUGHT.God is one and has a Son He filled with His own Spirit
Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 16 2009,13:10) David's source says: Quote In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them.
TO ALL:Here is the rule:
Quote If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76).
Please note that the rule applies to substantives. The words “buying” and “selling” in Matthew 21:12 are not substantives but participles. So the “grammarian” David invokes above misapplies the rule. Just another example of anti-trinitarian unscholarly scholarship. This is totally laughable!:David invoked Henry Alford who said:
Quote “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421 .
But Alford's Greek text and his notes were not esteemed by scholars and are always undergoing revision:
Quote Alford, 1849. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament; with a critically revised Text, a digest of various readings, marginal references to verbal and idiomatic usage, Prolegomena, and a critical and exegetical Commentary. For the use of Theological Students and Ministers. Vol I, containing the four Gospels. London, 1849; 2nd ed., 1854; 3rd ed., 1855. Vol II, containing the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, 1852; 2nd ed., 1855. Vol III, containing Galatians to Philemon, 1856. Vol IV, containing Hebrews to Revelation, 1859 and 1860 (issued in two parts). Alford's volumes were continually under revision, so that eventually the first two reached a seventh edition, while the last two reached only a fifth. The final editions were reprinted together in 1958 by Moody Press, Chicago. The text changes from edition to edition, gradually moving further away from the Received Text until it closely resembles that of Tregelles. In his latest Prolegomena he says, “The text which I have adopted has been constructed by following in all ordinary cases the united or preponderating evidence of the most ancient authorities. . .[while] applying those principles of criticism which appear to furnish sound criteria of a spurious or genuine reading.” (vol 1, page 81). As a statement of such principles he then reprints a section of Griesbach's Prolegomena (for which see Griesbach 1796). In doubtful cases, he says, “I have found of especial service the critical notices prefixed to each chapter in Meyer's Commentary” (page 85, note 4. see Meyer 1883).
Scholars did not much esteem Alford's text and notes, because these were often very unsatisfactory wherever he did not simply follow others. But Alford's work was important nonetheless, because it made available to English students, in convenient and inexpensive form, a great deal of critical and philological lore from the works of the famous German expositors. Therefore it became very popular and was much studied. A collation of Alford's text as it stood in 1871 against Estienne 1550 is given in Newberry 1877.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alford1849CONCLUSION: David invokes a “grammarian” who applies participles to a rule that applies only to substantives. Then he invokes Henry Alford's notes which were not highly esteemed by the scholars of his day.
David also gave a list of translations of Titus 2:13 which really do not contradict the Granville Sharp rule. He is expecting that you will read Titus 2:13 the way he does. David is pretty slick isn't he?
thinker
Hi JackExactly! I have showed David how they misaplied the rule, but the deceptions of the NWT and their translators as well as the WT continue to pile up. This is the way that they do things at JW halls it seems.
GSR has never been debunked and is proof that they would rather hold on to their doctrines than to accept the truth, much like holding on to believing in more than one god while claiming they are not Polytheist even though the scriptures specifically teach that we are to have no other Gods before us or even make mention of them.
So if Jesus is “a god” to them and he is their “Only Lord and Master”, Jude 1:4 and yet he is not the “True God” to them, then they are committing Idolatry IMO.
WJ
David cites a source which said:
Quote So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.
TO ALL:The statement above is an example of begging the question. Note the two sentences I highlighted in bold. The first statement I highlighted says that the construction would be “NATURALLY be understood of one subject.” Boom! There it is! By the admission of David's own source the statement “our God and Lord” would be “NATURALLY” understood as one subject. The second sentence I highlighted says that the addition of Jesus Christ “makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
This is circular and just totally wrong. Jude vere 4 clearly contradicts this so called “grammar.” Jude said,
“4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Jude 4 has the same grammatical construction as 2 Thess. 1:12 with the addition of “Jesus Christ” and is clearly NOT a reference to two distinct subjects.
τὸν μόνον δεσπότην8 καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι.
and deny the only master of us and Lord of us Jesus Christ.The “Master and Lord Jesus Christ” is ONE subject.
TO DAVID: Don't miss my post on this thread earlier today.
thinker
Hi TT,
Moses, Jacob and Isaac can be found in scripture.
Have we found another trinity?What about John, Peter and James?
Hi TT,
Jesus should be your master.
He is Lord.Did you confuse him with his God and your God?[Jn20.17]
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 17 2009,07:59) Hi TT,
Jesus should be your master.
He is Lord.Did you confuse him with his God and your God?[Jn20.17]
Nick,
Why can't you just let the more scholarly minded here duke it out without your peanut farm interruptions?thinker
WJ said:
Quote Hi Jack Exactly! I have showed David how they misaplied the rule, but the deceptions of the NWT and their translators as well as the WT continue to pile up. This is the way that they do things at JW halls it seems.
GSR has never been debunked and is proof that they would rather hold on to their doctrines than to accept the truth, much like holding on to believing in more than one god while claiming they are not Polytheist even though the scriptures specifically teach that we are to have no other Gods before us or even make mention of them.
So if Jesus is “a god” to them and he is their “Only Lord and Master”, Jude 1:4 and yet he is not the “True God” to them, then they are committing Idolatry IMO.
WJ
Keith,
If you haven't already see my post immediately below yours in reference to the JW's treatment of 2 Thessalonians 1:12.David's nonsense “grammar” has my blood boiling now. He invokes rogue grammarians.
Jack
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2009,15:56) Hi TT,
Moses, Jacob and Isaac can be found in scripture.
Have we found another trinity?What about John, Peter and James?
NHHow about Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
You do believe in the three don't you? Matt 28:18, 19
If you say “yes” you believe in a Trinity for they are One!
If you say “No” then you deny the scriptures!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
