Trinity &#8211; Is 1:18&#039;s Proof Text #3

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 10 2007,08:23)

Why did you not answer the questions and spend so much time skirting around Jn 1:1?

To WJ .

Actually I didn't skirt around the John 1:1 issue. I did a thorough look at it and mentioned the possibilities for the different views out there. My post was focussed on John 1:1 whereas Isaiah's post was focussed on a writing I did back in 2000.

Not really fair, but I don't really expect that you both will ever be happy with whatever I do. You grumble and complain all the time about everything and skirt the real issue which is an honest look at the scripture(s).

Maybe you should find out if I made this post on a Sabbath. You might be able to rake up a bit of dirt aye!

Were you guys ever in Paris when Lady Diana was? Just curious.

July 10, 2007 at 4:43 am#59039

GeneBalthrop

Participant

t8 …..brother your just wasting your time with them, even if you pined them down they would just change the suject or get into some endless rambling, you will never convince them, what's interesting no one changes or listens to them, because grater is He that is in you, just dump it Brother…..
gene

July 10, 2007 at 7:07 am#59051

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 10 2007,13:50)

Isaiah.

I get the feeling that you don't like me.

I also think you are acting like a kiddie. MUST MUST MUST.
If not, I will start using words like ontological. WHA WHA WHA.

These debates are about putting you best foot forward Isaiah with your interpretation on the proof text. I don't remember anyone ever saying that you must answer all the questions ever asked. Such a promise would be silly wouldn't it. And as I said before, I am answering your questions anyway, but because you asked so many and accused me of so many things, then that was obviously never going to fit in one post was it? I am working through it and if I dedicated my rebuttal post to answering all your questions, then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to share my understanding and it would have been left for the readers to go on your negative comments alone.

So be patient and stop the demanding. Show some fruit like patience for example.

I have personally not engaged in asking lot's of questions to you, (maybe not even one, I am not sure) so I gave you a fair go and I didn't engage in dragging your name through the mud like you have done to me. I have given you my understanding of a proof text, which is the primary mission in these debates and freed you up to give your posts without dictating what you have to write.

That said I have already said I will answer your questions anyway, so I remind you again to be patient and stop demanding. Show some maturity. Yes we are to be like children, but that doesn't mean childish.

Now how about the citation for the definition in your post? Thanks.

Was it asking too much to expect you to keep your word?….

July 10, 2007 at 7:34 am#59052

Participant

He he. Your too much Isaiah.

Nothing will please you.

You will grumble no matter what and I don't know even what you are grumbling about now. I said I was going to answer your questions, not that it will make any difference to you.

You made your mind up years ago, and not even God will change your mind. (Please prove me wrong).

BTW: Citing your source is your idea. So if you don't have a problem defying your own standards, then go ahead and defy yourself.

July 10, 2007 at 7:37 am#59053

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 10 2007,16:43)

Yeah thanks Gene.

Good advice. I know Jesus gave up on some of the pharisees in the end. Their hearts were too hard, and they wanted more than anything to keep their traditions alive. Jesus got in the way of their plans, and they couldn't accept his words.

Jesus was just too radical for them.

July 10, 2007 at 10:56 am#59070

Cult Buster

Participant

t8.

If you believe that you have the truth on your side, then you should not be afraid to dialogue with Isaiah on John chapter one.

Can't you just answer Isaiah's questions instead of twisting this way and squirming the other way. Just give a straight answer to Isaiha instead of wriggling and playing word games?

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

July 10, 2007 at 12:23 pm#59080

charity

Participant

Don’t take Dee. Bait t8

Can see A good heart
Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor? When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness.
A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.
A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled. Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

charity

July 10, 2007 at 4:22 pm#59098

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 10 2007,16:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 10 2007,08:23)

Why did you not answer the questions and spend so much time skirting around Jn 1:1?

To WJ .

Maybe you should find out if I made this post on a Sabbath. You might be able to rake up a bit of dirt aye!

Were you guys ever in Paris when Lady Diana was? Just curious.

Patronize!!!

Definition…

To adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly!

Haughty!!!

Definition…

Blatantly and disdainfully proud!

I dont think asking a question about you not answering Is:18 questions is “Grumbling and Complaining”.

Also the writings you did back in 2000 on Jn 1:1 is fair game!

You say it is not fair! Then why not edit and change your writings?

July 10, 2007 at 4:35 pm#59100

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 10 2007,14:00)

Quote (t8 @ July 08 2007,21:46)

OK here is my response. It is what I put forward. I have not attempted to answer all Isaiah’s questions because I think such an exercise would take way to long to complete and would also make this post too long. I also doubt that anyone would read such a long post, and if they did, they might perhaps switch of from time to time when reading it. So my rebuttal is simply the case that I make and I will endeavor to at least answer some of the questions he has posed to me in later posts. That said, there are answers to some of the questions that stood out to me in his post.

Hi Isaiah.

Here is the opening of my rebuttal. Please read it carefully.
Thank you and yes I am enthusiastic still.

So don't worry, if you demand an answer to your questions, I will give what I can. You just need to be patient. My rebuttal answered most of the questions and accusations, and I answered another 1 or 2 in other psots. I will endevour to answer some more in good time.

Isaiah, you can't have everything you want when you want. You need to act in a mature way if you are a follower of Christ.

You appear to have a control problem and get upset when I freely express my understanding. You spend too much time attacking me personally rather than teaching correctly with scripture.

Your post for example is more about putting me down and bad mouthing what I said than teaching your view point on John 1:1c. I personally don't think that was very fair, but then again, I never made a big deal about it, like you are doing now.

I just ask that you show some maturity. We are adults and childish behaviour isn't going to get you what you want.

Patronize!!!

Definition…

To adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly!

Haughty!!!

Definition…

Blatantly and disdainfully proud!

Eph 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

July 10, 2007 at 9:59 pm#59126

charity

Participant

I just ask that you show some maturity. We are adults and childish behaviour isn't going to get you what you want.[/quote]
Patronize!!!

Definition…

To adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly!

Haughty!!!

Definition…

Blatantly and disdainfully proud!

Eph 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.[/quote]

Have you made this into a Law in your heart WJ?… Eph 5:9 and ten
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Hang all the Laws up on one,
The Law of Love and kindness
For when we do not hear, when to stop,
it becomes a principality and a evil force,
the Law is the sting of death, of a snare and trap,
when we begin to call evil good, and our Good becomes evil

And then this I declare is the truth and the friut of the spirit, Not to despise the goverment that is sent, perverting scripture into a Laws, and to deliver the godly out of such temptations.
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Thank you t8 and Isiah

July 10, 2007 at 11:25 pm#59139

Participant

Thanks for the rebuke charity.

I still hold to what I say and somethings do need to be said.
If I try to use a bit of humour it is because the situation is silly. See Psalms on that one.

I also think that he should cite his quote. He accused me of something I didn't do, while he did that thing himself. A double standard is a double standard and when someone points the finger it comes back at them. This is spoken of in scripture. (New Testament.)

It needs to be said Charity, and it is only said so he will face up to his own rules and responsibilities and I have said many times that I will answer his questions. But he is using this as a way to make me look bad. But if he was a fair man, he would let me answer in good time.

When they turn on you (if they do) we will see what your response is like, won't we?

BTW was Jesus wasn't being immature when he rebuked the Pharisees.

Thanks for listening.

July 11, 2007 at 5:28 am#59179

Participant

Quote (charity @ July 11 2007,09:59)

I just ask that you show some maturity. We are adults and childish behaviour isn't going to get you what you want.

Quote

Patronize!!!

Definition…

To adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly!

Haughty!!!

Definition…

Blatantly and disdainfully proud!

Eph 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Have you made this into a Law in your heart WJ?… Eph 5:9 and ten
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Thank you t8 and Isiah
Charity

I see you are of the same spirit of judgment and condemnation!

Thats what I am talking about!

Matt 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

You dont know my heart! You dont know the Love I have for my Lord God!

Jesus is the sweetest name I know!

There is none like him, neither is there any to be compared to him. He is the lilly of the valley, the bright and morning star, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God.

He is my beloved who leaps ore the mountains and skips over the hills.

Behold the voice of my beloved he comes.

I have suffered the loss of all things that I may win Christ.

I press toward the mark for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus my Lord. Not as though I have arrived.

Jesus is my prize. He is worthy of all praise and honour and Glory and Power and Dominion and wisdom and strength.

I am my beloveds and he is mine!

One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of my Lord all the days of my life.

To behold the beauty of the Lord and to enquire in his temple!

He is my rock and my shield in him I will trust all of my days.

He is my light and my salvation, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me!

July 11, 2007 at 5:35 am#59181

david

Participant

Hello All.

I've been gone for a while.

So, I see this thread is going nowhere as we all knew it would.

The reason it is going nowhere and never will is that the scholars (Isaiah's and T8's) all agree that grammatically, this scripture can be translated various ways and really, there doesn't seem to be a perfect translation into English.
So it comes down to how the translator interprets John's words as a whole, how they interpret the Bible as a whole.

In the trinity thread, before, while discussing this with me, (somewhere around page 275) Is 1:18, you stated:

“Although some Greek scholars insist that the last two words should be rendered “a god” or “divine”, by far the vast majority of them accept the former translation and reject that latter.”

So, you correctly admit that some Greek “scholars” insist that it should be rendered “a god” or “divine.”
You then point out that the “vast majority” of scholars reject this translation.
Both in your latest arguments and in the ones of a year or so ago, you spent quite a bit of useless time trying to explain the concept of: THE MAJORITY IS RIGHT.

This is a fallacy, and you know it. In fact, you're the one who taught me about fallacies, remember? “The majority is right” is a fallacious argument.

The last time I checked “theos” is capitalized in the all 20 English versions offered on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org. This shows that there is a strong consensus of opinion that disagrees with t8’s little “g” ascription. T8 may argue that the ratio simply reflects the disproportionality of translators with a trinitarian bias’ but I think most sound-thinking people would agree that the impetus of the scholars that translated the versions listed on the aforementioned websites mentioned was to preserve the integrity of the original texts and not to promote their own doctrinal axioms. And let’s bear in mind that these English versions were translated by teams of the world’s expert New Testament Greek scholars:
New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholars
The checks and balances used in the translation process is designed to eliminate the possibility of a radical influence dictating the mishandling of a particular verse (i.e. making it say something other than the original Greek annotated). Would these hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered by falsely translating “theos” with a capital ‘G’ in John 1:1c?

Again, here you make the same mistake. THE MAJORITY MUST BE RIGHT, you contend.
And for the record, the early Greek manuscripts did not differentiate between capital letters and small letters. But because the Word as “theos” is said to be with another who is “ho theos,” that is “the God,” then surely the Word must be another “theos”. If this is so then the translator of this passage into English where capitals and lower case letters are in use would have every right to show this by using a capital “G” of the one who is said to be the God and a lower case “g” for the Word who is said to be with the God. (Reference: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl…..1.htm)
You state:

“I think most sound-thinking people would agree that the impetus of the scholars that translated the versions listed on the aforementioned websites mentioned was to preserve the integrity of the original texts and not to promote their own doctrinal axioms. “

(Interestingly, not only did you use this same argument on me a year ago, but you used the same words.)
History shows you are wrong here. We know that people do such things. Of course the may want to or convince themselves that they want to “preserve the integrity” of the original texts. But they want to do so in a way that favors what they believed. If the verse in question can be translated more than one way, or if this verse really can’t be translated into English in any completely perfect way, then which way are they going to choose? They’re going to choose the way that reflects their beliefs. And their beliefs are trinitarian.
BUT, I found it amusing, what you said about the translation process, asking “Would these hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered by falsely translating “theos” with a capital ‘G’ in John 1:1c?”

Yet, it is not really hundreds that were responsible for all the John 1:1's. It seems they are often broken up into translation teams, with different teams translating different parts of the Bible. It just bothers me that you make it seem as if each of those 500 scholars personally looked over John 1:1, when this is far from the case. The Bible is a big book and that is part of the reason they needed so many scholars. Think about that. If any one of the scholars was above reproach, wouldn’t one be enough? The reason they used so many I suppose is that, as you imply, there actually was the “possibility of a radical influence dictating the mishandling of a particular verse” and secondly, because often, they break the Bible up into sections and translate it that way. (Of course, I’m not saying each one is given his own section, but they are broken into translation teams.)
You asked: “Would these hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered.”
I don’t know that anyone is saying they universally “blundered” anymore than anyone is saying that the thousands of evolutionary scientists blundered. They saw what they wanted to and interpreted it the way that pleased them. ” I believe we are saying they have a great slant towards trinitarian thought (as they do) and that when given a verse that could go either way, which way are they going to slant towards? So, your question is a wrong one.
Going on, you say and I learn that we are actually only so far, apparently speaking of capitalization of the “g.”
“ I think the odds on that having occurred [hundreds of Kione Greek-English grammarians have universally blundered] in every single English version offered on BibleGateway and the Blueletterbible English Bible lists are infinitesimally-small, it’s absurd to even imagine this could happan. The preponderance scholarly opinion on the correct case of the word God (theos) in John 1:1c issue falls on solidly the side of capitalisation.”

Yes, that would be quite small. But I don’t think anyone is saying they all blundered.
A blunder is a stupid mistake. I believe they made a smart mistake, smart for them that is. And I don’t even think this was all on purpose. A lot of it has to do with tradition and not offending people. We KNOW that sometimes Bible translation committees have done what the MONEY demands. And they falsely reasoned that the money demands that people buy or read these Bible’s.
We KNOW that the Bible itself says:
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Tim 4:3,4)
Accumulating teachers for themselves to have those teachers tell them what they want to hear? Could that actually happen? God’s Word says ‘yes.’
On the top of your list is the NIV, with the most scholars. Does this make it the most credible?

“New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115
scholars.”
God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once. When asked about this, notice what is said and how telling it is.
Edwin H. Palmer, Th. D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it–that is how many have bought it to date–and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Profit is a low motive for changing this most important text.
“The situation today, where many translations…exists largely because of the amount of money to be gained…” -(The Preservation of the Bible By Faithful Churches)–By Charles V. Turner
Here’s the truth: Where money is concerned, you can hire a team of scientists, scholars, engineers, teachers, or whatever to come up with the data you want. Finding a hundred is easy.
Anyway, enough of the MAJORITY MUST BE RIGHT stuff. Because you are so well acquainted with fallacies in thinking, I would deem this whole argument sophistry: “a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.” (Some dictionary)

As for your actual arguments about the grammar and context, I really don't know as much Greek Grammar as I should and would just largely be quoting the scholars who agree with me. I have read the Bible and John's words as a whole and believe there is no way of conceiving that the context demands that John 1;1 be translated: “and the Word was God.”

I look forward to reading these posts, as I haven't really read much of them yet, other than Is 1:18 fallacious opening arguments.

July 11, 2007 at 5:47 am#59184

david

Participant

Quote

Q1) Can you explain how your notion that two divine beings existed “in the beginning” (i.e. pre-creation and before the advent of time) is compatible with biblical monotheism? [Note: Could you please address Isa 44:6-8 and Isa 46:9 as part of your answer]

Just noticed one of these questions that is apparently being avoided.

Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.
This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14)

I think your “in the beginning” equals “pre-creation” idea isn't really a Biblical one.

July 11, 2007 at 6:30 am#59192

http://www.4truth.net/site….=982777

Participant

David

You say…

Quote

I don’t know that anyone is saying they universally “blundered” anymore than anyone is saying that the thousands of evolutionary scientists blundered. They saw what they wanted to and interpreted it the way that pleased them. ” I believe we are saying they have a great slant towards trinitarian thought (as they do) and that when given a verse that could go either way, which way are they going to slant towards? So, your question is a wrong one.
Going on, you say and I learn that we are actually only so far, apparently speaking of capitalization of the “g.”

And what proof do you have in questioning the integrity of over 600 scholars?

As we have discussed before, you make these bold accusations simply because you have a few scattered referrences in oposition to them.

Yet you trust the translators of the NWT who have no greek scholars on their translation commitee.

Is 1:18 has made it clear up front that he was not trying to prove the trinity using this verse, but to show that Henotheism is not scriptural!

So should we follow your NWT David?

I think not, especially seeing its lack of credibility which we “Have proof of”.

So, do we know who the NWT translators were? The answer is yes, we do know, despite the WBTS' refusal to release the names. Raymond Franz is a former member of the WBTS Governing Body. In his book, Crisis of Conscience, he states that the translation committee consisted of Governing Body members George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, Fredrick Franz, and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr.

“Fred Franz (Raymond Franz's uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew” (Crisis of Conscience, 50).

The fact is, none of the members of the NWT committee, including Fredrick Franz, were really qualified to make a scholarly translation from the original languages. No one on the committee had more than a rudimentary familiarity with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. This lack of expertise is clearly revealed in the poor, biased quality of the NWT's renderings of many key biblical passages.

And another place…

The Testimony of F.W. Franz

While there is no evidence that the NWT Translation Committee possessed knowledge of the original languages, there is evidence that Frederick Franz lacked such knowledge. Under cross-examination in a court case in Scotland in 1954, Franz refused to translate Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew:

Cross: “You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?”

Franz: “I do not speak Hebrew.”

Cross: “You do not?”

Franz: “No.”

Cross: “Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?”

Franz: “Which?”

Cross: “That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?”

Franz: “You mean here?”

Cross: “Yes.”

Franz: “No. I won't attempt to do that.” (4)

This trial transcript has been appealed to by a number of Christian writers to demonstrate Franz's lack of skill in Hebrew (5). For example, Ron Rhodes writes that Franz failed “a simple Hebrew test” (6). In Appendix B of his Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Greg Stafford undertakes a defense F.W. Franz and his knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Mr. Stafford first notes that even if Franz knew no Hebrew, this says nothing of his skills in Greek. This is true, of course, but in the same court case, Franz claimed that he did know Hebrew as well as Greek (7). If his claims about Hebrew have no merit, how can we credit his claims about Greek?

Conclusion

There is no evidence that the NWT Translation Committee possessed the training or skills necessary to produce an English Bible from the original languages. Frederick Franz’s refusal under oath to render Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew is suspicious, given that there is no reason a Hebrew scholar qualified to sit on a modern English Bible translation committee would be unable to do so. Ron Rhodes and other writers who have used the Franz cross-examination as evidence that Franz lacked proficiency in Hebrew have done so legitimately.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/FranzNWT.htm

July 11, 2007 at 7:20 am#59195

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 11 2007,11:25)

Here is my source for that definition: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/predicateN.html
I have also amended the post to include the reference, even though in quoting a definition I was obviously not claiming it as an original thought. So I hope you are happy now…

T8, I can assure you that had you merely quoted a definition without referencing it I would not have made any fuss about it at all. And even though you basically ripped off whole paragrahs from this website – http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa029.htm – I hardly went overboard in taking you to task about it. This is what I wrote:

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26)

BTW t8, I note that few of paragraphs in your article bear a striking resemblance to some of the material on this website. Curiously, there was no sign of an acknowledgement of your source.

Not exactly a nasty rebuke…..

Anyway, this thread has become far more acrimoneous than it needs to be. I take some responsibility for that and hope that by no longer mentioning any indiscretions I will not further exacerbate the ill feelings.

Blessings

July 11, 2007 at 7:24 am#59196

Participant

Quote (david @ July 11 2007,17:35)

(Interestingly, not only did you use this same argument on me a year ago, but you used the same words.)

Am I not allowed to use my owns words more than once David…

July 11, 2007 at 7:29 am#59197