Truthful answers

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,15:15)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,06:46)

You are right Jack, this poll is unnecessary and I'm sure Mike will see that…we all make mistakes. One thing about polls as you can see with this one, is that you can vote/lie anonymously and no will know who you are and you can be a coward by doing that if that was done intentionally. True Christians don't do that, so, if someone voted like that by lying just to discredit someone else they are not acting like a true Christian and to do that is to attempt to slander someone which God speaks AGAINST. (I am not talking about you Jack, just to be clear. I don't think that you would do that.) I am suspicious of who did that…in other words, taken that 'opportunity' that is to anonymously slander me. Oh well, I will forgive them and go on. They should apologize IF they voted dishonestly in the attempt to discredit Keith or myself. But, like I said, it could have been an honestly confused person.

Kathi

Kathi,

Mike started all this crap about certain people being dishonest and now others are copying him. t8 is allowing Mike to take this forum down the toilet. What a shame!

Jack

Jack,
That is so second grade to think that I would suggest someone was dishonest just because Mike suggested that about someone else. What Mike did or didn't do has nothing to do with someone probably dishonestly voting against me, except for putting up this poll.

April 5, 2011 at 2:21 am#242086

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 04 2011,08:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 03 2011,20:17)

Mike,
I thought that Keith said 'yes' to that later on.
Kathi

Kathi

I did say YES “to those scholars” it is grammatically possible.

But my answer is still “NO” because other scholars disagree and the final conclusion was they all translated John 1:1c without the [a].

Mike should appologize for insinuating I am dishonest and a liar.

Keith,

I saw about 20 posts where you said “NO!”. I have yet to see one where you said “YES” to my question. Could you paste it in this thread, and if you did actually FINALLY say “Yes” to a question that only has one possible honest answer, then I'll apologize for missing the one “YES”, and you can apologize for lying the other 20 times, okay?

mike

April 5, 2011 at 2:24 am#242087

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 04 2011,09:24)

Quote (Baker @ April 04 2011,10:03)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,01:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 03 2011,20:17)

Mike,
I thought that Keith said 'yes' to that later on.
Kathi

Kathi

I did say YES “to those scholars” it is grammatically possible.

But my answer is still “NO” because other scholars disagree and the final conclusion was they all translated John 1:1c without the [a].

Mike should appologize for insinuating I am dishonest and a liar.

Keith, so what you are saying, some say yes, and you did too, but then some say no, and you did too… How will you tell who is right from those Experts?
Peace Irene

Ask Mike since he insist only “2” scholars are right yet those two scholars translated John 1:1c “The Word was God” without the [a] like the NWT translated it.

Irene,

Don't believe Keith. He has shown many scholars that don't PREFER the “a god” translation, but none that have ever said it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to translate John 1:1 that way. Why? Because it's not. It's a matter of preference and understanding, and in the case of Triniarians, much bias.

mike

April 5, 2011 at 2:33 am#242088

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,10:19)

I don't think Mike saw the post where you admitted that according to the scholars' quote, they said that it was grammatically possible.

But if he did finally answer with the HONEST answer of “YES”, doesn't that make all of his “NO” answers DISHONEST?

Or am I still in the Twilight Zone?

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,10:19)

I hope he can put this behind him 'cause it doesn't really matter.

Kathi, “a god” or not it doesn't matter to YOU. It does to ME. But in this thread, “a god” or not is the lessor issue, because it sure as the Gospel matters to me when people lie to me.

mike

April 5, 2011 at 2:47 am#242089

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 04 2011,12:19)

Mike didn't miss it and I will show every one how it went down in my next post.

Mike owes me an appology for accusing me of being dishonest and lying. He wants to give me a tile when I honestly answer his post yet he can call me a liar and not get a tile.

Watch and see how this goes down.

Keith, I'll be waiting. But if your “YES” answer is akin to your “YES, but NO” answer on page one of this thread, then you can't hold me responsible. Because “YES, but NO” is definitely not a “YES” answer.

And I'll tell you what else: You go ahead and show us all “how it went down”, and then I'll show us all the many “NO!” answers you gave to the same question.

You see, YOU are the one with the dilemma here. Because there is only ONE honest answer to my question. Kathi gave the only honest answer possible, even though she doesn't prefer the “a god” translation.

And then YOU are crying about me because you say you DID answer with a truthful “YES” once. But then what about all the “NO” answers you also gave? If “YES” was your truthful answer, and I'm wrong for saying you lied, what did you do all the times you answered with “NO”? Face it dude, you're stuck like Chuck on this one. And THAT is why I made this poll. So YOU could stick your own foot into your own mouth for all to see.

Because you either lied when you said “YES” or you lied when you said “NO”. Which is it?

mike

April 5, 2011 at 2:59 am#242090

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,13:46)

Kathi

:laugh: The poll is “unnecessary”? Sure it is………….until someone chose the “ONLY Keith” answer. Now all of a sudden, it's a big deal for someone to lie, huh?

This is what I've been saying all along and why I started this poll. I was beginning to think I was crazy because everyone was saying “NO” to the question. But consider this Kathi, maybe someone wasn't out to slam you, but someone is hell-bent on insisting “NO” is the honest answer to the question.

What do you think about that? Can “NO” even be considered as an honest answer to the question I asked? Of course not. But this is what I've been putting up with since I asked it weeks ago.

It's not like I'm asking if blue is a pretty color or something where any answer is equally valid. I worded it in such a way that there IS only one honest answer to it. These scholars either DID say “a god” was grammatically possible, or they DIDN'T. So which one is it?

And how in the world can we have five votes for both of you when one says “YES” and the other says “NO”?

I thought Christians were not supposed to lie. But I guess it's okay to lie, just not okay for someone to call you on your lie.

mike

April 5, 2011 at 3:15 am#242093

Blocked

Quote (terraricca @ April 04 2011,14:25)

how is it wen you are invited to show other scholars that may have taken a different view and see what they say BUT YOU DID NOT PRESENT ANY why??

Hi Pierre,

Let me catch you up to speed on this. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek languages use the indefinite article “a”. So any of the 8432 times you read “a” in the Bible, that “a” has been added by English translators to help the text make sense to us in English.

There is no Greek or English rule of grammar that prohibits adding the “a” in John 1:1, making the last part say, “the Word was a god”. And this is what I set out to prove, and I did that using two Trinitarian experts in the Greek language. Now Keith followed suit by starting a thread listing lots of Trinitarians who say they don't LIKE the “a god” translation, and that if John meant “a god”, he would have been teaching polytheism, and that “a god” isn't preferable. But he has not been able to post one scholar that says “a god” is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, because it isn't. And every Greek expert knows this fact.

But Keith and Jack went on a tangent trying to insist that not only is “a god” not PREFERABLE to the Trinitarians, but also not even GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. They did not succeed. And being the stubborn people and hardcore Trinitarians that they are, they could not accept this defeat. So instead of accepting it and honesly answering my question like Kathi did, they kept giving the dishonest answer of “NO” over and over.

Which prompted me to make this poll to show the truth of the matter, and which side of that truth Keith was on. And once again, I've succeeded.

Are you up to speed yet?

mike

April 5, 2011 at 5:21 am#242104

kerwin

Participant

To all,

C. H. Dodd is not saying it is grammatically possible since grammar is more than a word for word translation.

In my opinion translators sometimes seem not to know what is permissible in English grammar. :laugh:

April 5, 2011 at 2:16 pm#242132

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,21:47)

And I'll tell you what else: You go ahead and show us all “how it went down”, and then I'll show us all the many “NO!” answers you gave to the same question.

mike

I don't have time right at this moment but you better look again because my answer never changed because the answers were to 2 different questions, you reworded the original question Mike.

April 5, 2011 at 2:32 pm#242135

Participant

Well Mike,
Like I said, the person who voted 'only Keith' is either guilty of slander or confusion. If quilty of slander then also quilty of cowardliness and ungodly conduct. If confusion without cowardliness, then maybe they will come forward to discuss it with me. If confusion WITH cowardliness, then they won't come forward to discuss it with me. Polls allow for cowardliness because of their anonymity. Let's hope the person that voted in that manner isn't a coward and discusses this with me…that would be the right thing to do, imo.

Kathi

April 5, 2011 at 11:02 pm#242159

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,11:19)

Hi Keith,
I thought that you did and yes, I know that you disagree with them, so do I. I don't think Mike saw the post where you admitted that according to the scholars' quote, they said that it was grammatically possible. Mike just missed that, I guess. It is not hard to miss a post when there are so many of them. I hope he can put this behind him 'cause it doesn't really matter.

Kathi

I am having a hard time finding the post because we had discussed this in so many threads.

Maybe someone can help me find it so I can show mike in my answer to him that he is wrong.

Mike asked the question differently than he listed it here.

He had changed the question from “is it grammatically possible” to “does the scholar say it is grammatically possible”.

My answer to the first post is “No” and “Yes” to the second post that the scholar “SAYS” it is not grammatically possible but the answer for me and many other scholars is NO.

April 5, 2011 at 11:18 pm#242163

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,08:32)

Kathi

Okay Kathi,

So how can you be sure that one is guilty of “slander or confusion”? Is it because you know the only HONEST answer to my question is the one YOU gave, and not the one Keith gave? Of course that's it, or else you wouldn't be convinced that someone is guilty of one of those two things.

So now I'd like to know why you only give those two possibilities. Could it not be one of three – slander, confusion, OR LYING in order to not concede a point that might take away the edge on the most famous trinity proof text there is?

mike

April 5, 2011 at 11:24 pm#242164

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=200

Participant

Honestly Mike,
If you go to this link, you will see that Keith said that the scholars said that it could be translated that way. I think that is an honest answer. So I think that we both gave an honest answer. Therefore if someone said that I gave a dishonest answer and I think that Keith and I gave the same answer, then I think they are confused or slandering, lying is also a possibility.

Kathi

April 5, 2011 at 11:29 pm#242165

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=200

Participant

Here is an excerpt of that post made by Keith:

You have quoted a few sources opinions that it possibly could be translated that way and one of the sources admits that in context it could not be translated anarthrous because of the entire context of the scriptures which teaches Monotheism. Why are they still “Trinitarians” Mike? Why did none of them translate it anarthrous (should be arthrous – see edit). It seems that you should be able to find a few “anti-trins” who are Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars can't you?

I think that you asked the question differently at times…it wasn't always asked “according to these scholars…”

Kathi

April 6, 2011 at 12:24 am#242172

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=200

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,18:24)

Kathi

Thanks Kathi

I will find the post.

April 6, 2011 at 12:33 am#242174

Participant

Hi All

Here is a post I made to Mike that answers him….

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2011,10:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22)

Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?

Mike

I have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.

So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.

Found Here

If you notice the date stamp on the post, it is before Mike made this evil, demeaning, accusing, and condemning poll.

April 6, 2011 at 12:44 am#242177

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=230

Participant

Mike,
This is what you said in a post here from March 22 (third post from the top):

Kathi has immediately answered truthfully. Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully.

April 6, 2011 at 12:46 am#242178

Blocked

You are right Kathi. I found it on the “God among gods” thread.

Quote

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:38)

Aren't you guys reading the actual question? There is no available answer EXCEPT FOR “YES”. Because CLEARLY, ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS I QUOTED, “a god” IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, even though Harris clearly thinks that the the “a god” translation is a CONTEXTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

Mike

But that wasn't the wording of your original question was it?

This is….

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:53)

Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?

And we answered “NO” it is not grammatically possible, and in fact his conclusion was John 1:1c is anarthrous.
Since the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear you reworded it as your normal manner is too…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,17:32)

Mark, 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?

The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.

So I apologize to Keith for forgetting that he did answer the revised question honestly. But in all fairness, the first version of the question was also preceeded by the same quotes from the same scholars. And since I actually listed three scholars who flat out said it was grammatically possible, and try as he might, Keith was unable to produce any scholar who says it's not grammatically possible, his insistence that it's not grammatically possible is not a truthful statement based on the expert testimony and scriptural evidence. Face it guys, we add the “a” in 8432 scriptures to make them understandable to us in English. Does anybody really think there's a chance that out of those 8432 times, only John 1:1 is worded in such a precise way that it's the only scripture in the Bible where adding the “a” is prohibited? Come on Keith, get real. Deal with the honest fact that there is NO RULE OF EITHER GREEK OR ENGLISH GRAMMAR THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ADDING THE “A” IN 1:1. And for Keith to have searched through and posted the writings of many Trinitarian scholars who don't PREFER the “a god” translation, and still not find one single scholar who says it is “grammatically impossible”, the truthful answer, based on all the evidence we have, should be clear to him.

Also know that I went round and round for 3 weeks with this question on three or four different threads. If you look at page 20 of the “Freak Greek” thread, you can see where Jack posted the revised question, and still answered “No!”. And you can see somewhere around that same page where mikeangel answered “No” to the revised question also.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief when Kathi first answered the question honestly, and then Dennison followed suit. And somewhere in my mind, it was not only Jack and mikeangel, but also Keith who still refused. Keith, I apologize for going for YOUR juggler vein with this thread. I should have done the same thread with Jack's name instead of yours to make my point.

mike

April 6, 2011 at 12:47 am#242179