Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Has your bible been doctored?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And how can you know?

Well, one way is by buying yourself a Hebrew / English version of the OT and checking how many times the tegtragrammaton appears.

Having done that you look at your own translation and check how many times either Yahweh or Jehovah are in those same places. Jehovah is the accepted English translation of that tetragrammaton, whereas Yaweh is an accepted transliteration, simply transposing the 4 Hebrew characters into Roman characters and guessing where the vowels went and what they were, since no-one knows.

Martin Luther said that "Moreover, as oft as thou seest LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing), it is in Hebrew Iehouah" (interestingly at that time "I" and "J" were interchangeable, as were "U" and "V").

Another one is the addition of a passage into 1 John 5 between verse 5 and 9

The third is the much disputed passage at John 1:1.

If you look at the Emphatic Diaglott, which contains a Greek/ English interlinear column where the English word is matched up to the Greek word it translates, and an English only column alongside it

It makes interesting reading at John 1:1, when you compare the two columns as you will see at http://archive.org...

The interesting part is how the translation of John 1:1 changes from the interlinear to the English only column.

"In a beginning" in the interlinear changes to "In the beginning".

"a god was the word" changes to " the Logos was God" note the change even from lower case "g" to upper case "G".

Why did the translator feel it necessary to make the changes? To fit in with a false teaching of the trinity?

I for one certainly believe so. I can see no other reason.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:06:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dun know. The only religious people I can respect are those who are strict fundamentalists. They must be able to read the Bible in all 3 languages it was written in. No English, that would be blasphemy. Otherwise, no respect.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The capitalization of the divine is an english thing. I can't think of anothe language, off the top of my head that does that. I'm not sure how it even effects the translation nor the interpretation
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 8:30:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "If you look at the Emphatic Diaglott, which contains a Greek/ English interlinear column where the English word is matched up to the Greek word it translates, and an English only column alongside it."

Anna: I wouldn't pay much attention to the Emphatic Diaglott until I knew more of the educational background of the translators. I could care less of their theology. I just want to know where these men received their formal Greek-English training. Were they PhD's? How many were there?

The American Standard Version of the Bible employed 101 of the best, most highly educated scholars in the United States. Eminent PhD's such as Philip Schaaf, Professors of Greek from Yale, etc. I do not know the standing of the scholars who worked on the Diaglott. I also do not know which Greek scholars combined efforts to produce the Greek Interlinear employed in the Diaglott - nor who provided the literal English translation.43

In short, I know of NOT ONE good reason to replace the accepted American Standard Translation with something else.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "Well, one way is by buying yourself a Hebrew / English version of the OT"

Anna: I would also buy several Greek Interlinears of the New Testament, and I'd make sure that whoever supplied the English literal translation was well-qualified as a scholar of Biblical (Koine) Greek as well as Classical Greek. It would be preferable if the English literal translation were provided not only by A very competent, recognized scholar, but by a GROUP of them.

A "one-man show" produced by one man who was not a scholar at all (and any version in which the translators are so shady that they must remain anonymous) must be discarded as theologically suicidal.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 7:17:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 4:06:50 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
Dun know. The only religious people I can respect are those who are strict fundamentalists. They must be able to read the Bible in all 3 languages it was written in. No English, that would be blasphemy. Otherwise, no respect.

Being able to read the bible in the original languages is no guarantee of accuracy, most of those who doctored the bible could do that.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 7:18:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:00:32 PM, stubs wrote:
The capitalization of the divine is an english thing. I can't think of anothe language, off the top of my head that does that. I'm not sure how it even effects the translation nor the interpretation

That is true, but Greek uses different words to do what we do with capitalisation, hence the correct version of John 1:1 calls the Word a god.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 7:22:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 8:30:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "If you look at the Emphatic Diaglott, which contains a Greek/ English interlinear column where the English word is matched up to the Greek word it translates, and an English only column alongside it."

Anna: I wouldn't pay much attention to the Emphatic Diaglott until I knew more of the educational background of the translators. I could care less of their theology. I just want to know where these men received their formal Greek-English training. Were they PhD's? How many were there?

The American Standard Version of the Bible employed 101 of the best, most highly educated scholars in the United States. Eminent PhD's such as Philip Schaaf, Professors of Greek from Yale, etc. I do not know the standing of the scholars who worked on the Diaglott. I also do not know which Greek scholars combined efforts to produce the Greek Interlinear employed in the Diaglott - nor who provided the literal English translation.43

In short, I know of NOT ONE good reason to replace the accepted American Standard Translation with something else.

The original Greek is reason enough, and the educational standard of the translator is more of a reason for concern because with education comes bias and bigotry, hence God prefers those with simple minds like myself.

But of course you have to say what you do because you will not consider anything that casts doubt on what you prefer to believe.

Bad move because before you put faith in anything you should test it to destruction, How else can you really be sure?

I did, and because of that I don't just believe, I know.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 7:25:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 8:38:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Well, one way is by buying yourself a Hebrew / English version of the OT"

Anna: I would also buy several Greek Interlinears of the New Testament, and I'd make sure that whoever supplied the English literal translation was well-qualified as a scholar of Biblical (Koine) Greek as well as Classical Greek. It would be preferable if the English literal translation were provided not only by A very competent, recognized scholar, but by a GROUP of them.

A "one-man show" produced by one man who was not a scholar at all (and any version in which the translators are so shady that they must remain anonymous) must be discarded as theologically suicidal.

You see there you go, putting your faith in human qualifications rather than the approval of God, no wonder you are so far from the truth.

You don;t need to be a Greek scholar to see the right way to translate John 1:1, the fact that John used two different words is enough to show he meant something different by each one.

That's Koine Greek for you.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:33:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 7:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:00:32 PM, stubs wrote:
The capitalization of the divine is an english thing. I can't think of anothe language, off the top of my head that does that. I'm not sure how it even effects the translation nor the interpretation

That is true, but Greek uses different words to do what we do with capitalisation, hence the correct version of John 1:1 calls the Word a god.

Can you explain that. I have the Greek and I don't see anything that supports your proposition at the beginning of this post. Can you clarify for me?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:43:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "You see there you go, putting your faith in human qualifications rather than the approval of God, no wonder you are so far from the truth.

You don;t need to be a Greek scholar to see the right way to translate John 1:1, the fact that John used two different words is enough to show he meant something different by each one.

Anna: I never mentioned John 1: 1, did I? I said that your proposal is to replace the tried and true American Standard Version - a version produced by 101 of the most eminent, best qualified Greek scholars in America - with a ONE-MAN WONDER produced by a man who never had a college course in Greek!

MCB states, "the educational standard of the translator is more of a reason for concern because with education comes bias and bigotry"

Anna: With education, comes a thorough knowledge of the inflections, idioms, and declensions of Greek words. It's like having your heart surgery performed by 101 high-ranking cardiovascular experts rather than one man who never had a college course on the subject. By your standards, I believe I could translate a Bible and as long as I made sure to say, "The Word was a god" in John 1, I'd be A-OK in your book.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:13:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:43:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "You see there you go, putting your faith in human qualifications rather than the approval of God, no wonder you are so far from the truth.

You don;t need to be a Greek scholar to see the right way to translate John 1:1, the fact that John used two different words is enough to show he meant something different by each one.

Anna: I never mentioned John 1: 1, did I? I said that your proposal is to replace the tried and true American Standard Version - a version produced by 101 of the most eminent, best qualified Greek scholars in America - with a ONE-MAN WONDER produced by a man who never had a college course in Greek!

MCB states, "the educational standard of the translator is more of a reason for concern because with education comes bias and bigotry"

Anna: With education, comes a thorough knowledge of the inflections, idioms, and declensions of Greek words. It's like having your heart surgery performed by 101 high-ranking cardiovascular experts rather than one man who never had a college course on the subject. By your standards, I believe I could translate a Bible and as long as I made sure to say, "The Word was a god" in John 1, I'd be A-OK in your book.

Unfortunately not always some surgeons are notoriously bad as well, lol so you chose a bad analogy. Have you not read of the investigations into the work of some heart surgeons relatively recently?

I don't know if you could translate a bible or not, but I am sure you could tell where two different words were used, even I can do that.

Even I can tell when a blatant alteration ahs been made to prove a point when I see the evidence in front of me.

http://archive.org...

As in a comparison of the two versions of John 1:1 there, in the interlinear column and the English only column..
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:15:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:33:44 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/6/2013 7:18:40 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:00:32 PM, stubs wrote:
The capitalization of the divine is an english thing. I can't think of anothe language, off the top of my head that does that. I'm not sure how it even effects the translation nor the interpretation

That is true, but Greek uses different words to do what we do with capitalisation, hence the correct version of John 1:1 calls the Word a god.

Can you explain that. I have the Greek and I don't see anything that supports your proposition at the beginning of this post. Can you clarify for me?

Yes. For one thing read the interlinear translation of John 1:1 in this link, where two words are used for god, one denoting excellence and therefore translated as "God", the other not and therefore translated as "a god".

http://archive.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "I don't know if you could translate a bible or not, but I am sure you could tell where two different words were used, even I can do that."

Anna: Two different words that mean different things? Or two different words that mean the same thing? By the way, I feel quite sure that I could not translate the New Testament from scratch. I probably could translate it like Mr. Wilson did, however.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:03:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mysterious_Stranger: Whether a Bible has been doctored or not does not make its contents true.

Anna: I'm not sure whether the "truth" of a correct Bible translation was up for debate. It's a given on this thread.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:16:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 2:30:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "I don't know if you could translate a bible or not, but I am sure you could tell where two different words were used, even I can do that."

Anna: Two different words that mean different things? Or two different words that mean the same thing? By the way, I feel quite sure that I could not translate the New Testament from scratch. I probably could translate it like Mr. Wilson did, however.

Two different words that related to different aspects of the same or a related thing, in this case God and god Jehovah being the one and Christ being the other.

The Greeks weren't like us English or American speakers, if they used a different word it either meant a different thing or more likely a different aspect of the same thing.

As in

Philadelhia
Agape
Eros

All very different aspects of love.

If John had meant the same personage with the same status he would have used the same word. Especially with so much riding on it. One can only assume that he made the same mistake so many did. Knowing the true relationship between God and Christ he did not for one minute think that some would try and twist it as you do. Simple as.

Call it logic, call it common sense (though I have never understood why they call it that because common it isn't), it really is the only thing that actually works.

However first-born from the dead, actually applies to both the human Christ and the one who became him, since both died together on the "Stauros" or "Xylon" Stake or tree.

The trouble is partly that the word god in English can mean so many different things, and anything can be a god. Unlike the Greeks who "have a word for everything" we cram so much into one word.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "If John had meant the same personage with the same status he would have used the same word."

Anna: THERE is the assumption - and man, that is a big leap. You see, you merely assume that.

I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 2:57:04 PM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
Whether a Bible has been doctored or not does not make its contents true.

No, nor does it make it untrue.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "If John had meant the same personage with the same status he would have used the same word."

Anna: THERE is the assumption - and man, that is a big leap. You see, you merely assume that.

I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative? I'd like to see that Greek sentence.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:00:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 3:33:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "If John had meant the same personage with the same status he would have used the same word."

Anna: THERE is the assumption - and man, that is a big leap. You see, you merely assume that.

I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative?

He wouldn't have kept the same sentence structure because he wouldn't have been saying the same thing.

No it isn't simply a matter of case, though in English the case is important since it denotes excellence, as in "The God" rather than just any old "god".

You tend to lose me when you use grammatical terminology, it means little to me. I know how to tell what a phrase means even if I don't know the technical words to describe it.

I am, not that clever thankfully or God would be catching me in my own cunning also.

If John had meant that Jesus and God were the same, he would simply have said it, that is the sort of person John was, and he certainly wouldn't have complicated it by saying that the word was with God, implying a separation. If they were equal John would have made that clear also, if he knew.

All who follow Christ are very careful to explain things they way they understand them, even if sometimes their understanding is wrong and they have not been enlightened as to the true meaning.

It is not an assumption, it is knowledge of the over-riding principles of true Christianity and the personality of John. Apparently you don't even now either of them.

He would be very careful how he wrote such important things. He was a very loving, man and would not want to mislead any, particularly since honesty is the over-riding characteristic of anyone who wishes to follow Christ.

No, John would have written exactly what he meant, carefully and accurately, especially with holy spirit as his driving force.

That is how I know that the interlinear translation is the accurate one.

You have to take note of the personalities of the writers. That is what you get from close reading, an insight into the mind of the author through his writing.

That is also how we get an insight into the personality of God and Christ. Through what they have transmitted to mankind and inspired them to write in God's word.

That is why Jesus could make getting to know God, and himself, a condition of everlasting life.

Incidentally did you notice that in John 17:3 there is no mention of holy spirit?

Can you guess why?

Could it be because holy spirit doesn't have a personality to get to know?

Of course it is. Holy spirit is a power not a person.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 3:35:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "If John had meant the same personage with the same status he would have used the same word."

Anna: THERE is the assumption - and man, that is a big leap. You see, you merely assume that.

I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative? I'd like to see that Greek sentence.

But that's the point. It isn't like that because it doesn't have Theos in both places. Check the Greek text, it has two different words there, Theos and Theov. Different aspects of the same thing.

I am hoping that teh greek characters come out right here:

1 Eif apxV yv & hoyos, teat 6 Xoyos f\V irpos
In a beginning was the word,' and the word was with
rov 6eov9 KCLL Ocos t\v b Xoyos. ^Ovros f\v ev
the God, and a god was the word. This was i

OK they didn't come out as the true characters, but at least it shows they are different words since the ASCII code is different for the characters.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB was asked: "I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative? I'd like to see that Greek sentence.

*****

MCB muses: "He wouldn't have kept the same sentence structure because he wouldn't have been saying the same thing."

Anna: Do you mean to sit there and tell us that John could not have said " ... and the Word was God" - even if he had intended to?

MCB: "You tend to lose me when you use grammatical terminology, it means little to me."

Anna: Well, it's not that difficult. There are four cases in Greek: nominative, dative, genitive, and accusative. In John 1, you are dealing with the nominative and accusative - which makes it simpler, not more difficult. The nominative is simply the subject, or (as in English) a predicate nominative. The accusative is generally the objective case, as in "direct object." It doesn't take a college-level grammarian to know that.

MCB: "If John had meant that Jesus and God were the same, he would simply have said it, that is the sort of person John was."

Anna: Regardless of your perceptions of John's personality, John said:

"kai theos en ho logos"

literally, "and god was the word"

You seem to think that because John employed the nominative case (used here to denote a predicate nominative) that somehow John was NOT saying "and god was the word" - and you hearken back to the SAME WORD, merely used in the objective (accusative) case, as a comparison.

Of course, the problem is this: when you are asked to provide a sentence in Greek that would be translated " ... and the word was God" --> YOU CAN'T DO IT. Keep that in mind. Nobody else can, either!

To try to tell people, "Oh, they're different!" - and then your entire argument revolves around the difference in the SPELLINGS of the accusative and nominative cases is, to me, a tad dishonest. It plays upon people's ignorance. Theos and Theon are the SAME GREEK WORD - one nominative, one accusative. Yet you triumphantly point to them and say, "See? They're different!" LMAO! Yeah, in CASE - not in any other way.

You were asked fair, very fair, questions up there. The fact is that you can't answer any of them! Yet, when you are trying to direct people to Bible versions, you tell them to check out John 1: 1 - as if you know how to translate it.

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have!

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Those should be the most basic of questions to someone who questions the translations of the most eminent of Greek scholars and cries "theological bias".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:46:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB was asked: "I have a question:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Why don't you write out the passage for us, in Greek, that John WOULD HAVE WRITTEN in order to achieve the translation "... and the Word was God"?

Right now, as it is, the passage says,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

You say that should be translated into English as follows:

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Very well. Suppose John had WANTED TO TELL US "and the word was God."

Exactly how would he have said it, and still maintained the same sentence structure, i.e. keep "god" in the latter phrase as the nominative? I'd like to see that Greek sentence.

*****

MCB muses: "He wouldn't have kept the same sentence structure because he wouldn't have been saying the same thing."

Anna: Do you mean to sit there and tell us that John could not have said " ... and the Word was God" - even if he had intended to?

MCB: "You tend to lose me when you use grammatical terminology, it means little to me."

Anna: Well, it's not that difficult. There are four cases in Greek: nominative, dative, genitive, and accusative. In John 1, you are dealing with the nominative and accusative - which makes it simpler, not more difficult. The nominative is simply the subject, or (as in English) a predicate nominative. The accusative is generally the objective case, as in "direct object." It doesn't take a college-level grammarian to know that.

MCB: "If John had meant that Jesus and God were the same, he would simply have said it, that is the sort of person John was."

Anna: Regardless of your perceptions of John's personality, John said:

"kai theos en ho logos"

literally, "and god was the word"

You seem to think that because John employed the nominative case (used here to denote a predicate nominative) that somehow John was NOT saying "and god was the word" - and you hearken back to the SAME WORD, merely used in the objective (accusative) case, as a comparison.

Of course, the problem is this: when you are asked to provide a sentence in Greek that would be translated " ... and the word was God" --> YOU CAN'T DO IT. Keep that in mind. Nobody else can, either!

To try to tell people, "Oh, they're different!" - and then your entire argument revolves around the difference in the SPELLINGS of the accusative and nominative cases is, to me, a tad dishonest. It plays upon people's ignorance. Theos and Theon are the SAME GREEK WORD - one nominative, one accusative. Yet you triumphantly point to them and say, "See? They're different!" LMAO! Yeah, in CASE - not in any other way.

You were asked fair, very fair, questions up there. The fact is that you can't answer any of them! Yet, when you are trying to direct people to Bible versions, you tell them to check out John 1: 1 - as if you know how to translate it.

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have!

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Those should be the most basic of questions to someone who questions the translations of the most eminent of Greek scholars and cries "theological bias".

I can only do it in English, lol, but I can guarantee John 1:1 would would have read something like:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.

Definitive, unarguable and accurate if that were the case. Typical of John's writing.

The whole sentence structure of the original wording indicates that not only are "The Word" and God two separate beings, but that they have different status, if only slightly.

Of course I cry "theological bias", there is no the explanation for the blatant and oblivious alteration of John 1:1 when moving from the interlinear to the English only.

Not only does the translator change from "a god" to "God" but from "in a beginning" to "In the beginning". If John said "a beginning" that would be what he meant. The bible describes many different beginnings of many different things.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:50:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you realize that, of the three very basic questions which you were asked, you basically answered NOTHING?

You know very well what is being asked. Even the atheists who aren't very familiar with the passage would know. How very simple it is!

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have, in Greek! It can't be that difficult.

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Shoot, the last two are simply YES or NO! And the first one merely asks for ONE GREEK SENTENCE.

It should take under five minutes, with time to spare, for those queries to be answered.

Yet MCB says, "The whole sentence structure of the original wording indicates that not only are "The Word" and God two separate beings, but that they have different status, if only slightly."

Anna: I wasn't asking about "different status" - I could care less about it. I never said that God the Father and Jesus Christ were "equal status". I am very concerned that you outright refuse to provide us with a Greek sentence which says, "And the Word was God". Know why? You can't - and no one else can, either.

Also, nobody is arguing that the Logos and God the Father are not different persons - different persons and different personalities. Not a person here has said that God the Father and God the Son are the "same person." What we are saying is that John said,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

What exactly would John have said if he had intended to convey the thought that Jesus Christ is God?

I think I ask for the benefit of others, because I am quite aware that you have no intention whatsoever of supplying an answer. You can't. When the rubber meets the road, you won't answer! But anyway, you have three very simple questions up there.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 9:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Griesbach:

"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

Hug:
"the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane literature"

Colwell:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons."

Ehrman:
Ehrman's recent book on the subject is entitled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Its title speaks for itself.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 6:01:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:50:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
Do you realize that, of the three very basic questions which you were asked, you basically answered NOTHING?

You know very well what is being asked. Even the atheists who aren't very familiar with the passage would know. How very simple it is!

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have, in Greek! It can't be that difficult.

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Shoot, the last two are simply YES or NO! And the first one merely asks for ONE GREEK SENTENCE.

It should take under five minutes, with time to spare, for those queries to be answered.

Yet MCB says, "The whole sentence structure of the original wording indicates that not only are "The Word" and God two separate beings, but that they have different status, if only slightly."

Anna: I wasn't asking about "different status" - I could care less about it. I never said that God the Father and Jesus Christ were "equal status". I am very concerned that you outright refuse to provide us with a Greek sentence which says, "And the Word was God". Know why? You can't - and no one else can, either.

Also, nobody is arguing that the Logos and God the Father are not different persons - different persons and different personalities. Not a person here has said that God the Father and God the Son are the "same person." What we are saying is that John said,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

What exactly would John have said if he had intended to convey the thought that Jesus Christ is God?

I think I ask for the benefit of others, because I am quite aware that you have no intention whatsoever of supplying an answer. You can't. When the rubber meets the road, you won't answer! But anyway, you have three very simple questions up there.

But that is precisely what the accepted translation of John 1:1, and is the bass of the trinity teaching, three gods in one.

Do you not even know your own theology?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 11:12:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Allow me to repeat the queries:

Do you realize that, of the three very basic questions which you were asked, you basically answered NOTHING?

You know very well what is being asked. Even the atheists who aren't very familiar with the passage would know. How very simple it is!

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have, in Greek! It can't be that difficult.

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?


Shoot, the last two are simply YES or NO! And the first one merely asks for ONE GREEK SENTENCE.

It should take under five minutes, with time to spare, for those queries to be answered.

Yet MCB says, "The whole sentence structure of the original wording indicates that not only are "The Word" and God two separate beings, but that they have different status, if only slightly."

Anna: I wasn't asking about "different status" - I could care less about it. I never said that God the Father and Jesus Christ were "equal status". I am very concerned that you outright refuse to provide us with a Greek sentence which says, "And the Word was God". Know why? You can't - and no one else can, either.

Also, nobody is arguing that the Logos and God the Father are not different persons - different persons and different personalities. Not a person here has said that God the Father and God the Son are the "same person." What we are saying is that John said,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

What exactly would John have said if he had intended to convey the thought that Jesus Christ is God?


I think I ask for the benefit of others, because I am quite aware that you have no intention whatsoever of supplying an answer. You can't. When the rubber meets the road, you won't answer! But anyway, you have three very simple questions up there.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 8:45:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 11:12:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
Allow me to repeat the queries:

Do you realize that, of the three very basic questions which you were asked, you basically answered NOTHING?

You know very well what is being asked. Even the atheists who aren't very familiar with the passage would know. How very simple it is!

No, you back up and give us EXACTLY what John would have said if he meant to convey, "And the word was GOD." He said, "Kai theos en ho logos" - but you don't think that does it! Tell us what would have, in Greek! It can't be that difficult.

And answer the other questions. You'll learn something by doing so:

A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?


Shoot, the last two are simply YES or NO! And the first one merely asks for ONE GREEK SENTENCE.

It should take under five minutes, with time to spare, for those queries to be answered.

Yet MCB says, "The whole sentence structure of the original wording indicates that not only are "The Word" and God two separate beings, but that they have different status, if only slightly."

Anna: I wasn't asking about "different status" - I could care less about it. I never said that God the Father and Jesus Christ were "equal status". I am very concerned that you outright refuse to provide us with a Greek sentence which says, "And the Word was God". Know why? You can't - and no one else can, either.

Also, nobody is arguing that the Logos and God the Father are not different persons - different persons and different personalities. Not a person here has said that God the Father and God the Son are the "same person." What we are saying is that John said,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

What exactly would John have said if he had intended to convey the thought that Jesus Christ is God?


I think I ask for the benefit of others, because I am quite aware that you have no intention whatsoever of supplying an answer. You can't. When the rubber meets the road, you won't answer! But anyway, you have three very simple questions up there.

I answered them and stated my position on them. That is all you are getting on that, you know deep inside that you are wrong, John 1:1 can only mean one thing because nothing else fits, and I have shown you the evidence from Vatican manuscript 1209 that proves it has been doctored. The changes made between the interlinear column and the English only column can be called nothing else but doctoring.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:01:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: "A. Is the difference between theon and theos merely the difference in case? Is that all it is?

B. Is theon and theos the SAME GREEK WORD, with theon simply being the accusative, and theos being the nominative?

Shoot, the last two are simply YES or NO! And the first one merely asks for ONE GREEK SENTENCE.

Also, nobody is arguing that the Logos and God the Father are not different persons - different persons and different personalities. Not a person here has said that God the Father and God the Son are the "same person." What we are saying is that John said,

"kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

What exactly would John have said if he had intended to convey the thought that Jesus Christ is God?

MCB: "I answered them and stated my position on them. That is all you are getting on that"

Anna: You didn't answer any one of the three. Yeah, you stated your "position" - which simply means you made your assertions. Sure you did! That's why I asked the questions - which, once again, you outright refuse to answer.

You can do better than that, surely. I'm quite surprised that you do not even know what John would have said IF he wanted to convey, "And the Word was God."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."