Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,16:14)And that's the whole point, Keith.  When translating ANY writing from a language that does not use an indefinite article into a language that does, everything is up to interpretation and context.  But interpretation and context is based upon MAN'S opinion and conjecture.  So none of it is cut and dry.So yo…[Read more]

Good points Jack!  WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,15:46)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,13:44)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,14:32)And as much as you try to twist monogenes around, the fact remains that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.  No only begotten son of anyone has ever been that same “anyone”.MikeAnd no only begotten son of anyone is of a…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,14:32)I voted for “angel”, which Jesus clearly is.  He is possibly the ANGEL of God who went before the Israelites during their exodus.  He was definitely a MESSENGER of his God, which means he is an ANGEL of his God.MikeThat is straight out of Watchtower. If Jesus “kind” is “angels” then why do the scriptures s…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,14:32)And as much as you try to twist monogenes around, the fact remains that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.  No only begotten son of anyone has ever been that same “anyone”.MikeAnd no only begotten son of anyone is of a “different kind”!WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,14:07)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,12:29)In the above verses is it grammatically possible that the word “theos” God in referring to the “One True God” can be translated with an “a” or indefinite article?Keith,ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY!  That's what I'm trying to tell you!  In every scripture you listed, i…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,13:46)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,12:07)MikeOf course it can be translated that way, the NWT is proof of that. But is it “Grammatically” correct?Keith, I have never asked you if it is “grammatically CORRECT”.  I've only asked if it was grammatically POSSIBLE.mikeIf it is not grammatically correct then…[Read more]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,13:19)OH you reduced your nose picking?  Are the nurses helping you stop your bad habits at whatever old people building place your at?The good thing as that the nurses are pro's at cleaning your ears. To bad they cant help you with your amnesia though….to bad..Dennison ROTFLOL You are killing me! Make my…[Read more]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,13:12)18) Possibility Fallacy:  Is When a poster claims just because an aspect is possible, which means it COULD be true, NOT THAT IT IS.Therefore the fallacy is that Possibilities are not facts.  Example:  A)God could have saved the world by another means other than Jesus Christ, which is possible for God to…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,12:53)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 19 2011,10:28)MikeNo Mike, if they thought it could be translated that way then why didn't they?The fact they didn't translate it that way does not mean it CAN'T BE translated that way, Keith.Acts 28:6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,12:53)The fact they didn't translate it that way does not mean it CAN'T BE translated that way, Keith.MikeOf course it can be translated that way, the NWT is proof of that. But is it “Grammatically” correct?To me and the conclusive actions of the 1000s it means it can't be translated as arthrous.To you it should be…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,10:37)Actually the fact that they ARE Trinitarians who definitely PREFER the arthrous translation is even more telling.  Because even as they PREFFER “the Word was God”, and consider the “a god” translation to be monsterous, they are still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that the Greek words allow for the latter…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,10:37)Actually the fact that they ARE Trinitarians who definitely PREFER the arthrous translation is even more telling.  Because even as they PREFFER “the Word was God”, and consider the “a god” translation to be monsterous, they are still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that the Greek words allow for the latter…[Read more]

MikeGrammar also includes context.Your sources are still Trinitarian which means their conclusion on John 1:1 is that it should be anarthrous for reasons like Polytheism.Here is your proof Mike. Over a 100 translations render the verse arthrous and the conclusion is settled by 100s of Biblical Greek scholars translating it that way!You have proven…[Read more]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 17 2011,17:35)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,05:14)t8Ha ha. You have your own creeds written on this sight. A creed is “a system of religious belief; a faith: people of many creeds and cultures”.Your system of beliefs is right out of the JWs textbook who is the modern day church to the Arians.  You also have creeds t8 for…[Read more]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,14:55)So his argument is already lost because his premise is to disprove that Jesus is God using scriptures.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,20:20)When YOU are ready to give THE ONLY HONEST ANSWER to my question about 1:1c, then I will CONTINUE to disprove that Jesus is God Almighty – just as I have been…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:55)Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:12)Mike asked:Quote 1.  Based on the words of the scholars quoted above, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article into John 1:1c?  YES or NO?NO!Show your scholarly evidence to support your answer of “NO”………….and the link to where I can a…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,20:23)Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,15:42)So Mike tried to bully us into conceding the grammatical possibility that it may be translated 'a god' but instead he concedes to us. What exactly did I “concede”?  I wasn't the one ruining my personal reputation on this site by speaking falsehoods and claiming…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:53)I will ask the question once more, and anyone answering with a “NO” needs to show some SCHOLARLY evidence to support that answer.  And once again, I'm NOT talking about OPINIONS that say “a god” in 1:1c is UNPREFFERABLE or MONSTROUS or UNTHINKABLE or CONTEXTUALLY FAULTY.  I'm talking about evidence that say…[Read more]

Later JackAnd have a safe trip and a good time.Blessings Keith