Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,08:38)Good stuff Jack.David doesn't come around as much since I had that long debate with him about the Coptic and proved that his argument was ambiguous. But you have found some new evidence that I had not seen. Thanks! WJWhy is it that people always ascribe my absence to themselves? WJ, It is highly…[Read more]

Kangaroo, for you to keep using the logic that you are a student of Greek, and therefore, we should just bow to your knowledge is absurd. Whether a student of Greek or a teacher of Greek, there are those who disagree with you. And every time you say you are a student of Greek, we could equally say, there are other students of Greek.

Quote I am a REAL student of Greek and I don't go against the scholars unless I have compelling evidence. –KangarooSo,1. Sometimes it makes sense to “go against the scholars.”2. You are a “REAL” student of Greek.I am curious if you are a “REAL” scholar of Greek that was spoken back then? A lot of people today speak Greek. We could just go to…[Read more]

Quote Hi David,You are making the assumption that there are times that the Sahidic Coptic doesn't use their version of the indefinite article proceeding the word “God”.Let's examine them if they exist. Please produce the verses. (1Thess.5:21)Ed, I really don't think you know very much about this. All over the place, everywhere. Just check.Ed,…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,21:14)TO ALL,I give another example of the use of the word “God' without the definite article. The NWT translators did not insert the indefinite article 'a' in this instance. Their rule is that the indefinite article 'a' must be inserted when there id no definite article“It is my Father who glorifies me, of…[Read more]

Quote English translators add the indefinite article into over 8000 scriptures to make them understandable to us in English. There is no special Greek wording, circumstance, or rule of Greek grammar that would prohibit a translator from adding the indefinite article in 1:1c.–Mike.Reading a lot of these threads, you would think that the one and…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,10:08)WJ said to ED J:Quote Looking in that mirror again aren't you.Do you like beating people over the head with scriptures in an attempt to accuse of wrong doing rather than admit you were wrong.You are not getting much respect out of me Ed, and you make it less and less desirable to have dialogue with…[Read more]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,19:34)Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:13)Quote The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same.  I've noticed that WJ keeps repeating this argument.  The “majority is right” is neither logical, nor Biblical.  Ever hear of the flood?Hi David,Apparently, you have used that same ar…[Read more]

Quote Hi Mike,What you have not even considered is that the Coptic may need the indefinite article in John 1:1 for it to make sense in the Coptic language.We know that it is not necessary (in this case) to add it in English!–Ed.Hi Ed.Just like English, the Coptic language had both an indefinite and definite article. A choice was made to add the…[Read more]

Quote Hi everyoneThis is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.–WJ (underline added)Then, Ed's immediate response:Quote Hi WJ,I did not agree with Mike, and Mike did not call any of us 'dishonest'!This is…[Read more]

Quote The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same. I've noticed that WJ keeps repeating this argument. The “majority is right” is neither logical, nor Biblical. Ever hear of the flood?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,03:13)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40)Keith, why do you think the Coptic version has been “hidden away” by the trinitarian “cream of Greek scholarship”?MikeDavids so called evidence has already been debunked! Do some research and come again. What will you have? Nothing to stack against the translations…[Read more]

Quote Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?–MikeQuote MikeYes–WJWJ clarifies this saying:Quote No Mike. I said they are mentioned in scriptures. I didn't say I believe they are Gods.So, WJ, to be clear, you acknowledge that there are “gods” who are “mentioned” in scripture that are neither…[Read more]

Again, NO!Until you have the credentials and expertise to show me how it could be grammatically possible then you are just blowing smoke in the wind. I will go with every major translation and the 1000s of Biblical Hebrew and Greek experts in the languages and the grammar.–WJAnd I will go with EVERY MAJOR ECONOMIST of 2006 and say that there is…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2011,13:28)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24)Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,16:31)NOBecause John was not a Polytheist and the Bible is not a Polytheistic book.But Keith, let me remind you once…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2011,13:19)Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 10 2011,09:07)Mike's freak Greek exposed!Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3,…[Read more]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,09:31)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24)Hey smart guys!  I only have one simple question for you.  I wonder if you'll answer it HONESTLY and DIRECTLY.    Because there is ONLY ONE HONEST AND DIRECT ANSWER TO IT.  Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and…[Read more]

As many trinitarian scholars agree, it is of course grammatically possible to translate John 1:1 as “a god.”  It is simply not preferred by the trinitarians.  I wonder why.They often say things like: “it is grammatically possible but not grammatically favored.”  Or, “'a god' is possible, but in the context clearly not what is intended.”  Or, “Ac…[Read more]

Quote Not really david, because he never made that claim. but you have. –SF, page 5. 12:32I don't really understand this sentence. I think it was meant to be directed to Mike. it was in response to something mike said, although my name was mentioned in Mike's words.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 09 2011,04:00)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,04:56)Quote (david @ Mar. 06 2011,01:23)OK, you started this thread on Feb 23d.  Do you remember roughly how many days it was before He said that, and you started this new thread.  Was it right away?  Or was it a matter of weeks?  Any ideas?I'm not opposed to wad…[Read more]