Ray wrote:...Deuteronomy 13.2 says ... if the prophet makes a false prophecy i.e. watchtower,...to have nothing to do with them.
I could go on and on. The evidence is stacked against you both historically and Biblically.
James 2.19
Isaiah 45.5
Deut. 6.4
I would love to see you rectify these verses. Just three of countless verses testifying to one God.
vir litterarum wrote:I am not making an assertion on either position on this topic, but I was just wondering whether the reason the article was not used with "theos" was merely to make clear what the subject of the sentence is. If the verse had "o theos," then wouldn't it be possible for someone to assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word, i.e. "God was the Word"?
There is no hope of killing it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.kopio wrote:
This is like the Jason Vorhees of threads....we just can't seem to kill this one.
JohnOneOne wrote:As a clue to how this could/should, otherwise, be translated, examine some examples of a similar Greek construction (syntax) as that found at John 1:1c, and see how your own prefered translation(s) of the Bible have opted to render them:
Now I ask you; Who has the theological bias?JohnOneOne wrote:
But, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God's Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines for translating and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, more often than not, they commonly offer to their readers, "and the Word was God" - when, in fact, the Greek doesn't literally say this (and that's not to mention the previous points made regarding the internal contradiction that rendering presents within the immediate context of that verse).
Bert wrote:There is no hope of killing it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.kopio wrote:
This is like the Jason Vorhees of threads....we just can't seem to kill this one.
In advance my apology for adding to it. It is frustrating to see someone slinging around scripture verses as pretext for a prooftext.
JohnOneOne wrote:As a clue to how this could/should, otherwise, be translated, examine some examples of a similar Greek construction (syntax) as that found at John 1:1c, and see how your own prefered translation(s) of the Bible have opted to render them:
The only similarity is that the verb is a form of εἰμί. Not one of them is: Two nouns, one with and one without the article, and a form of εἰμί"
Mark 6:49 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
Mark 11:32 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 4:19 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 6:70 VERB LAST WORD
John 8:44a EXISTENTIAL USE OF THE VERB
John 8:44b SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 9:17 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:1 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 10:13 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:33 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 12:6 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSENow I ask you; Who has the theological bias?JohnOneOne wrote:
But, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God's Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines for translating and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, more often than not, they commonly offer to their readers, "and the Word was God" - when, in fact, the Greek doesn't literally say this (and that's not to mention the previous points made regarding the internal contradiction that rendering presents within the immediate context of that verse).
JohnOneOne wrote:
What I should have said/included is that, at John 1:1c we have *a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated).*
klewlis wrote:It seems to me that any time there is ambiguity in the text, every translator's rendition will reflect his/her own theological bias. The phenomenon is not limited to any one viewpoint.
the only one deserving of exclusive worship.
Therefore, the rendering, "and the Word was a god" would, in no way, promote/support any concept of polytheism.
Talmid wrote:JohnOneOne -
A lot of heresy can hide behind a lot of scholarship. Let me demonstrate the breakdown of your logic:the only one deserving of exclusive worship.
Well, "But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him'" (Heb 1:6 as quoted from the 1969 Kingdom Interlinerar Translation of the Greek Scriptures).Therefore, the rendering, "and the Word was a god" would, in no way, promote/support any concept of polytheism.
So what you're saying is that multiple gods dooes not equal polytheism. Gods and monotheism do not harmonize well, maybe in the Watchtower worldview, but for the rest of us common folk, it does not.
Talmid wrote:YHWH (English as Yahweh or Jehovah),
And another thing...
Can we please get away from using the name "Jehovah"??--we all know it's an erroneous rendering of the Tetragrammaton YHWH.
On that note, I'm curious, how does your favorite Bible translation show respect for and, therefore, chosen to render God's Divine and Holy Name?
Talmid wrote:On that note, I'm curious, how does your favorite Bible translation show respect for and, therefore, chosen to render God's Divine and Holy Name?
It uses several different names based upon the context. These include "Jesus," "Father," "Holy Spirit," etc.
Within your favorite translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the "Old Testament," how have they chosen render and thus to show respect to YHWH, God's self designated, eternal Name?
Talmid wrote:Within your favorite translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the "Old Testament," how have they chosen render and thus to show respect to YHWH, God's self designated, eternal Name?
JohnOneOne -
This is a loaded question for which there is no satisfactory answer as you are well aware. Your intention is to denigrate the integrity of my Bible, even though the matter has no bearing on our previos discussion of the inaccuracy of "Jehovah." In logic and formal debate, this is called a red-herring--namely, it seeks to thwart attention away from the discussion at hand much like a smelly red herring was used in the late 1800's to thwart the attention of dogs tracking a scent on a trail.
Unfortunately for you, I will not fall into your trap.
For your information though, my favorite text of the Old Testament is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed., which leaves the Tetragrammaton in its original Hebrew characters.
Just to finish, as regarding your statement that I have intentions "to denigrate the integrity of [your] Bible," you know as well as I do, if they have not given that Name its due honour, they have already done any of this 'denigrating' all by themselves, with no help from me.
Talmid wrote:Just to finish, as regarding your statement that I have intentions "to denigrate the integrity of [your] Bible," you know as well as I do, if they have not given that Name its due honour, they have already done any of this 'denigrating' all by themselves, with no help from me.
I knew you could not resist to proceed with your red herring!
The matter still stands, however, that the NWT inserts the name "Jehovah" all over the Old and New Testament, for which the Greek has never known such a name.
Talmid wrote:Alan -
Thanks for sparring over the matter. I'm gonna have to call it quits for today so I can finish my rigorous final exam in Latin.
In closing, based upon your answers and links to WT sights, its obvious you are well aware of the problems associated with WT theology. They are always trying to cover up truth by lenghty articles of scholarship at a depth no average laymen could ever possibly understand. Do keep this in mind that God, Yahweh, will not let your willful sin go unpunished with hellfire and brimstone (cf. Mt 10:28).
These are just my final words given in love with hopes you will repent.
Bert wrote:There is no hope of it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.
In advance my apology for adding to it. It is frustrating to see someone slinging around scripture verses as pretext for a prooftext.
Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests