Quote How can anything be “less ambiguous”? It is either ambiguous or it is unambiguous. WJ, I knew something sounded wrong with that sentence.  You're absolutely correct.  Let me re-phrase.  You said: “its dishonest of you to bring up the Coptic version and promote it as being “Unambiguous” while trying to convince us it has nothing to do with yo…[Read more]

While I've commented on the date of the Coptic before, here's an interesting point I found in:”Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic John 1:1c should be translated “a god”””5. TimelineWhile we cannot know with specificity the theological presuppositions of the Coptic translators, or even if those presuppositions guided their translation of John 1:1c,…[Read more]

Quote lost in the desert.mmmm. Desert.

The languages of that time that manuscripts were translated into didn’t have the indefinite article, except for Coptic.The translator's of the Sahidic Coptic Version knew Koine better than anyone today can claim to; they grew up immersed in it because it was an important international language in their day.”When looking at the Coptic, what is c…[Read more]

Quote Well, so they are all wrong except the Coptic!Which means that we should trash all the present translations and take up the “NWT”.Go see the fallacies thread WJ. Or just read some of my posts.And of course, the NWT isn't the only one to translate it this way. That is also wrong.Quote No its dishonest of you to bring up the Coptic version…[Read more]

“The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man′u·el. ““The maiden (young woman).” Heb., ha·‛al·mah′; LXX(Gr., par·the′nos)Sy(Syr., bethul·tha’), “the virgin”; AqSymTh(Gr.), ne·a′nis, “maiden; girl”; Lat., vir′go, “virgin.”

Quote How can Catholic's say, “No way.” to Mary having other children when the bible clearly says she did? That has always puzzled me?I used to discuss the Bible with a lady who said that topic was off limits. If I mentioned it, the conversation was over.

Quote And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God”. John 20:28From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of 'our great…[Read more]

I'd like to address this statement once again, which was made by WJ:This thread about the Coptic version will not change what has been found in the thousands of manuscripts which BTW many were around long before the Coptic and many were early Christians that translated them also.Yes, it was Christians that translated the manuscripts back then,…[Read more]

Quote The whole point of John 1:1c not having the definite article is to show that “The Word” is not the Father, yet at the same time showing the nature or quality of “The Word” is God.–WJ, “coptic” thread.”God” is not a quality or nature. WJ, your statement above only makes sense if instead of the last word being “God” it was instead “godly” or…[Read more]

Regarding John 1:1, and it's translation of Jesus as “a god” or “God” based on the coptic manuscripts, see:https://www.heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=coptic

http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/The translator's of the Sahidic Version knew Koine better than anyone today can claim to; they grew up immersed in it because it was an important international language in their day. How did they understand the Greek, as reflected in their translation?1:1a Hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje1:1b Auw pshaje nefshoop…[Read more]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 18 2008,01:34)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2008,12:35)I think that translating John 1:1c as “a god” also would be unpopular to the Hebrews that believed there is only one “True God”.Quote (david @ Oct. 17 2008,16:39)What if I said: “I believe there is only one true Captain of the enterprise–William…[Read more]

Quote No, what this thread is about is your trying to grasp for straws to prove that your NWT correctly interprets John 1:1c as “a god”.Actually, it isn't WJ. There is already a thread on the NWT and John 1:1.This is such a large topic, it deserves it's own thread–especially since it's something very few people are aware of.Quote None of the…[Read more]

Hi Lightenup.Regarding JOHN 1:18I find the 11th or so paragraph of this article very interesting:http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdfThe whole article is interesting, actually.

Quote When I claim people are deluded I put up evidence.  How about you put up some evidence for your claim, or withdraw the 'deluded' accusation?I have proved it.  This thread exists.  If you could actually disprove anything in the Bible, that would be the end of it.  You'd say: Here, look.  And you'd only need on thing, one actual true soli…[Read more]

WJ, (Regarding your NWT link) I see you're not really paying attention to what this thread is about.  There's probably a couple threads already on attempting to discredit the NWT.The question of this thread is: How should John 1:1 be translated, specifically in view of the very early and more precise Coptic translation?If The coptic translation…[Read more]

Quote The Coptic pattern does NOTpredicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.This was an interesting sentence. “God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.”Yet, what do we see in John 1:1c. Not a definite article, but rather, the indefinite article.

Next sentence in the link:Quote Also… “If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering.And that is exactly what they literally wrote. You can look at coptic and say that this may mean “a god” or “divine” but you cannot…[Read more]

Next sentence:QuoteAs B. Metzger observes, “Compared with Greek is much more wooden and lacking in suppleness and variety of expression” (1977: 107).It might be more wooden, but concerning John 1:1, it is without question, more precise.And, that being the case, isn't it nice that those who translated this actually knew the Greek and still use…[Read more]