- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike
You could have left me out of your poll all together, lol…now I got a vote against me forever implanted on this message board insinuating that I was dishonest…without knowing who the person is for sure or proof to back up their allogations and no opportunity to directly challenge them. grrrr!
Anyway, I'm glad you apologized, I knew you would.
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,18:54) Anyway, I'm glad you apologized, I knew you would.
Kathi
Ah…………but not so fast. I knew I wasn't crazy. Check this out from the “Get Lost mikeboll” thread that Jack started, Found HereQuote Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,01:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,18:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,16:47) mikeboll64,Mar. wrote: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 KNEW I wasn't crazy, but only caught up in a Twilight Zone episode. And you can see the plain as day, big as life “NO!” in his post as an answer to the REVISED question. So my first point still stands. If Keith was telling the truth with his “YES” answer, then what was he doing when he answered “NO!”? What is the opposite of Yes? No, right? So what is the opposite of truth?
BTW, he never did find any scholar to say the “a” was not grammatically possible like he had hoped.
mike
Oh the drama continues…
Ok Mike…I can see that there was confusion and I think that I am catching Dennison's headache, ha. Let Keith clear it up. Maybe he will end up apologizing for adding to the confusion and everyone will go home happy.
KathiHi All
If you notice the time stamp on Mikes above quote it is before I made the following post pointing out that he had changed the question….
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,18:12) 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.
MikeBut 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.
Dr. Mantey stated… “There is no statement in our “GRAMMAR” that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a “PERMISSABLE” translation in John 1:1.
Now an honest question for you Mike…
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Hopefully you will not twist my words.
WJ
My answer was still “NO” but agreeing that the “Scholars say it is possible”.
Even after this Mike continued his attacks on me.
Mike created this confusion by bringing the conversation into so many threads.
Dr Mantey says it is not grammatically “permissible” to be translated as “a god”, if it is not “grammatically permissible” then it is not grammatically possible.
And as far as I know Mike still hasn't answered my questions.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,08:28) 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.
Kathi,I agree that each person is ultimately responsible for his/her own actions. But Mike remains the instigator nevertheless.
Jack
Hi All
As a follow up to my previous post…
On March the 18th as Kathi pointed out I had already admitted that his sources “OPINIONS” say that it is possible for John 1:1c to be arthrous in this quote————–>
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,13:07) 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.
Later I explained my answer to his “reworded” question and Mike in the following post even accepted my answer on March the 22nd yet he continues to call me dishonest and then creates this thread on April the 3rd to discredit me by calling me dishonest and by insinuating I was lying.This was Mikes acknowledgement…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,17:12)
The answer would still be “NO” it is not “grammatically possible” BUT ACCORDING TO THESE FEW SCHOLARS, “YES” THEY SAY it could be.
I'll take that for now. I'll move this answer and my follow up question to the “Freak Greek” thread.Also Mike stated again that he acknowledged my answer in this post———————>
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:07) Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 22 2011,07:45) No
If this “NO” is in response to my question, then you're falling behind the rest. Kathi has immediately answered truthfully. Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully.Mike said on March the 22nd…”Keith has FINALLY answered truthfully“, yet he continues with his accusations and then creates a thread to say I am dishonest and that I didn't answer his question.
Then once again in the following post I had told him here that I already had answered him before.
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?
MikeI 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.
WJ
Notice again the date was March the 23rd that I answered him again yet he still created this thread to defame me.
WJ
WJ said:
Quote Notice again the date was March the 23rd that I answered him again yet he still created this thread to defame me.
Keith,I must say that I am disappointed in Kathi for saying that my remarks regarding Mike starting taking HN down the toilet is “second grade” behavior on my part. The fact that Mike started a special thread to make you look dishonest AFTER you answered him more than once is proof that Mike is just being a child and a trouble maker.
I stand by my criticisms of Mike.
Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,16:28) 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.
Bump for Jack,
Read it again Jack. I was referring to the comment you made about “certain people being dishonest and now others are copying him.” That is what I was referring to. You were implying that just because Mike is accusing of dishonesty, then I am copying him and accusing of whoever voted against me as possiblly being dishonest. That was what was 'so second grade.' In second grade kids do things just because someone else did them. That is not what I am about and I think you should know that.He had nothing to do with me suspecting the anti-Kathi voter of being dishonest. Was it you afterall?
Also, Jack you are not above being an instigator. You actually created a new topic “”Get lost Mikeboll” and made yet another place for this conversation to continue.
Kathi
Keith,
Keith, it wasn't all Mike's doing to have all this confusion, Jack created an attack thread himself regarding this topic. But like Mike just showed you, you did answer the question with a 'no' and it was the clear question about 'according to these scholars' so I think that you can take 'some' of the blame for the confusion here.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 06 2011,15:54) Keith,
Keith, it wasn't all Mike's doing to have all this confusion, Jack created an attack thread himself regarding this topic. But like Mike just showed you, you did answer the question with a 'no' and it was the clear question about 'according to these scholars' so I think that you can take 'some' of the blame for the confusion here.Kathi
KathiI will acknowledge there was confusion and that is the very reason I gave him that answer at first because he admitted himself that he reworded the question 5 times, but it is obvious even after a couple times me telling him that I answered him he went on to create this thread to slander me and of course it ended up with you and me getting votes of dishonesty by some who didn't know all the facts.
What if I would have created a thread accusing Mike of dishonesty for accusing me for 2 weeks after I answered him without presenting the whole story?
What if I would have insinuated that he is a liar and it was found out that I was spreading the untruth whether I knew it or not, do you think I would have not been tiled?
Do you think I would never hear the end of it?
Put his feet in my shoes and mine in his and what would have been the outcome?
WJ
WJ said to kathi:
Quote I will acknowlede there was confusion and that is the very reason I gave him that answer at first because he admitted himself that he reworded the question 5 times, but it is obvious even after a couple times me telling him that I answered him he went on to create this thread to slander me and of course it ended up with you and me getting votes of dishonesty by some who didn't know all the facts.
See what I mean? Mike is a trouble maker.Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ April 06 2011,14:21) Oh the drama continues… Ok Mike…I can see that there was confusion and I think that I am catching Dennison's headache, ha. Let Keith clear it up. Maybe he will end up apologizing for adding to the confusion and everyone will go home happy.
Kathi
Mike needs to grow up!Jack
Kathi said:
Quote You were implying that just because Mike is accusing of dishonesty, then I am copying him and accusing of whoever voted against me as possiblly being dishonest.
Dear Kathi,Where did you get this? I was saying that others were copying Mike by imputing dishonesty to you like Mike has accused Keith of dishonesty.
Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,10:09) Sorry Jack,
I didn't understand you…Can we move on?
No problem.
You and I are in the Hot Seat. Are you willing? Bed time for me.
Jack
Keith, Jack, Kathi and All,
Here is the bottom line and why I started this poll:
I asked Keith this question:
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?
Keith answered with:
Quote Why do you ask the same question I have answered. NO!
To which I said:
Quote 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.
Do you see the big part? Do you see that I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't actually read the question right? His next response SHOULD HAVE BEEN, “Oh, I didn't see the 'according to these scholars' part, so the answer is actually 'YES'.” Because that's what Kathi did, and that was the only honest thing TO DO. But that's NOT what Keith did. Here was Keith's very next response:
Quote 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.
Can you see that Keith had the chance to claim he misread the question and make it right? But he didn't, did he?
Keith has since answered the question HONESTLY by saying “YES”. But once again I ask, if the HONEST answer was “YES”, then what was Keith's answer of “NO!”? Obviously a lie, right? So then how can he get mad at me for pointing out he lied? HE'S the one who did something wrong by lying, not me by pointing out the fact he lied.
I've made my point with this thread. And I'll do it again if the problem arises again. If you want to lie to me, I'll put you right in the spotlight, baby!
mike
This is the facts…
Hi All
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2011,18:12) 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.
MikeBut 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.
Dr. Mantey stated… “There is no statement in our “GRAMMAR” that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a “PERMISSABLE” translation in John 1:1.
Now an honest question for you Mike…
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Hopefully you will not twist my words.
WJ
My answer was still “NO” but agreeing that the “Scholars say it is possible”.
Even after this Mike continued his attacks on me.
Mike created this confusion by bringing the conversation into so many threads.
Dr Mantey says it is not grammatically “permissible” to be translated as “a god”, if it is not “grammatically permissible” then it is not grammatically possible.
And as far as I know Mike still hasn't answered my questions.
Mike can you prove that I was dishonest or lying when I answered you first since according to your words you changed the quesiton 5 times and pasted the same conversation in about 3 threads?
Prove I was dishonest or misleading Mike or hush with the accusations I am dishonest or a liar.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
