Total Posts:197|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why was the translation of John 1:1 changed?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 1:23:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?

Well, follow this link for yourself and check out the difference between the English in the interlinear section and the English only column you will see:

http://archive.org...

As you will see the English-language wording in the interlinear column is as follows:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word.

interestingly when you move over to the English-only column you see something very different:

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was god.

So what are the changes:

a beginning has become the Beginning - the original version suggests that there has been more than one beginning, rather obviously true. The new version suggests only one beginning, but if so, which one , since there have been many begionnings.

The beginning of creation
The beginning of the preparation of the earth for habitation
The beginning of the preparation of the Nation of Israel
The beginning of the "preparation of the way" for the arrival of the Christ by John the Bapitser.
The beginning of Jesus life as the Christ or Messiah
The beginning of the preparation for a New Israel of God.
The beginning of the New Israel of God itself
The beginning of the Apostasy
The beginning of the war in heaven which saw Satan cast down to teh vicinity of the Earth
The beginnning of the rule of Christ in his heavenly kingdom
The beginning of the "Pangs of distress"
The beginning of the Great Tribulation
The beginning of Armageddon
The beginning of the resurrection
The beginning of the restoration of the Earth
The beginning of the final test
The beginning of God taking the kingdom back from his son.

No doubt it would be possible to list other beginnings.

The next change in that verse is from "the Word" to "the Logos". - I have no idea why but since the words have the same meaning I don't suppose it matters.

Then we have a change from "the God" to simply "God" - why remove the definite article? Unless it's to take away from the fact that the 2nd occurrence of a word meaning God is without one.

Again we have the change from "the Word" to "the Logos" - for which my comment is exactly the same.

Finally we have the change from "a god" to "God". - In Koine Greek there is no indefinite article, so normally the absence of one would be indicated by either a word with a different implication to it or the absence of the definite article. You notice the 1st occurrence of "God" is preceded in both the Greek and English by the definite article, "Ho" in the Greek and "the" in English. The 2nd occurrence, which in the interlinear column lacks the G but in the English column has it is I suspect changed to deflect from the fact that in the interlinear the Greek word translated as god is used to delineate not a title, nor a status, but the divine or godlike nature of the one who became Christ, a nature he shares with both his father and the Angels. in other words the one who became Christ, the Word, was the spirit being like his father, and the Angels. Incidentally, the Angels are even called god's, as are humans in Scripture.

Even Satan is referred to as "the god of this system of things".

Since the interlinear version agrees so well with versions translated by other Trinitarians, as listed below, is it not fair to believe that those who prefer that translation are simply being honest despite the fact that it indicates the falseness of their beliefs?

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

Detractors from this version usually concentrate on Jehovah's Witnesses, and criticise what they see as "their" translation. Happily ignoring the fact that it did not originate with them, but was selected as them as apparently being more accurate.

These detractors also ignore the simple fact that while Jehovah's Witnesses are not Trinitarians, the translators of the above versions invariably were.

Such detractors are simply trying to raise a smokescreen, in order to cover up the inaccuracy of their version, and their beliefs.

Since there are so many other Scripture is which definitively counter the Trinity, and described Christ as a created being, and the only one created by God alone, the translation which describes the word as a god, indicating his divine nature, not his title, is considerably more acceptable.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:58:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?

Well, follow this link for yourself and check out the difference between the English in the interlinear section and the English only column you will see:

http://archive.org...

As you will see the English-language wording in the interlinear column is as follows:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word.

interestingly when you move over to the English-only column you see something very different:

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was god.

So what are the changes:

a beginning has become the Beginning - the original version suggests that there has been more than one beginning, rather obviously true. The new version suggests only one beginning, but if so, which one , since there have been many begionnings.

The beginning of creation
The beginning of the preparation of the earth for habitation
The beginning of the preparation of the Nation of Israel
The beginning of the "preparation of the way" for the arrival of the Christ by John the Bapitser.
The beginning of Jesus life as the Christ or Messiah
The beginning of the preparation for a New Israel of God.
The beginning of the New Israel of God itself
The beginning of the Apostasy
The beginning of the war in heaven which saw Satan cast down to teh vicinity of the Earth
The beginnning of the rule of Christ in his heavenly kingdom
The beginning of the "Pangs of distress"
The beginning of the Great Tribulation
The beginning of Armageddon
The beginning of the resurrection
The beginning of the restoration of the Earth
The beginning of the final test
The beginning of God taking the kingdom back from his son.

No doubt it would be possible to list other beginnings.

The next change in that verse is from "the Word" to "the Logos". - I have no idea why but since the words have the same meaning I don't suppose it matters.

Then we have a change from "the God" to simply "God" - why remove the definite article? Unless it's to take away from the fact that the 2nd occurrence of a word meaning God is without one.

Again we have the change from "the Word" to "the Logos" - for which my comment is exactly the same.

Finally we have the change from "a god" to "God". - In Koine Greek there is no indefinite article, so normally the absence of one would be indicated by either a word with a different implication to it or the absence of the definite article. You notice the 1st occurrence of "God" is preceded in both the Greek and English by the definite article, "Ho" in the Greek and "the" in English. The 2nd occurrence, which in the interlinear column lacks the G but in the English column has it is I suspect changed to deflect from the fact that in the interlinear the Greek word translated as god is used to delineate not a title, nor a status, but the divine or godlike nature of the one who became Christ, a nature he shares with both his father and the Angels. in other words the one who became Christ, the Word, was the spirit being like his father, and the Angels. Incidentally, the Angels are even called god's, as are humans in Scripture.

Even Satan is referred to as "the god of this system of things".

Since the interlinear version agrees so well with versions translated by other Trinitarians, as listed below, is it not fair to believe that those who prefer that translation are simply being honest despite the fact that it indicates the falseness of their beliefs?

1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, in the interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible"An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,G"ttingen, Germany.

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 "and a god was the Logos" Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by J"rgen Becker, W"rzburg, Germany.

Detractors from this version usually concentrate on Jehovah's Witnesses, and criticise what they see as "their" translation. Happily ignoring the fact that it did not originate with them, but was selected as them as apparently being more accurate.

These detractors also ignore the simple fact that while Jehovah's Witnesses are not Trinitarians, the translators of the above versions invariably were.

Such detractors are simply trying to raise a smokescreen, in order to cover up the inaccuracy of their version, and their beliefs.

Since there are so many other Scripture is which definitively counter the Trinity, and described Christ as a created being, and the only one created by God alone, the translation which describes the word as a god, indicating his divine nature, not his title, is considerably more acceptable.

What difference does it make to you sinners who have no clue who God is? Arguing comes from God's plan of deception called "Lucifer and the beast" that caused man fear called "pride". Out of fear, man argues to satisfy his own flesh which is where "pride" comes from.

The "boogie man" in the woods analogy works great to show you that fear comes from not understanding that there is no "boogie man" in the woods and that our Creator was the one who put this "boogie man" in the minds of men to confuse them and make them fear it.

You argue with me because you have no knowledge of God to know that God made the "boogie man" to make you fear it. Pride makes you lie to cover-up the fact that you don't understand that there's no "boogie man" in the woods.

We saints know that this world is nothing but an illusion in the minds of men that isn't real. It will be removed as all flesh perishes and then we'll awaken in a new world that won't contain "boogie men" in the woods.

So there's nothing to worry about. God has planned everything to a dotting all the "I's" and crossing all the "T's". Every detail was carefully planned out so He could connect to us saints and teach us that there is no "boogie man" in the woods and that All His people will be saved from this world and be placed in the next worlds to come.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 4:34:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?"

Anna: Because the WatchTower says it - and they are spirit-guided folks who are actually the "faithful and discreet slave"?

*****

There's no need in responding to the rest as you once again advertise your own ignorance by thinking that the phrase "a god" can appear ANYWHERE in any legitimate interlinear. I'm not talking about John 1: 1 in particular - the phrase "a god" cannot appear ANYWHERE in ANY VERSE in an interlinear.

Thus the word "theou" in Acts 12: 22 is correctly rendered "of god" in an interlinear. In our standard translations, it reads "of a god". Both the interlinears and standard translations are correct. The reason that "a god" is not found in an interlinear is that NO SUCH PHRASE EXISTS.

(Same thing with the word "theon" in Acts 28: 6. A correct interlinear renders the word "god". An incorrect interlinear might render it "a god".)
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
8/27/2013 5:21:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 4:34:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?"

Anna: Because the WatchTower says it - and they are spirit-guided folks who are actually the "faithful and discreet slave"?

*****

There's no need in responding to the rest as you once again advertise your own ignorance by thinking that the phrase "a god" can appear ANYWHERE in any legitimate interlinear. I'm not talking about John 1: 1 in particular - the phrase "a god" cannot appear ANYWHERE in ANY VERSE in an interlinear.

Thus the word "theou" in Acts 12: 22 is correctly rendered "of god" in an interlinear. In our standard translations, it reads "of a god". Both the interlinears and standard translations are correct. The reason that "a god" is not found in an interlinear is that NO SUCH PHRASE EXISTS.

(Same thing with the word "theon" in Acts 28: 6. A correct interlinear renders the word "god". An incorrect interlinear might render it "a god".)

You in your Obsession with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

No, I do not say it because Jehovah's Witnesses say it, I say it as I do everything because the evidence says it. Evidence such as a comparison of the interlinear, and English-only columns of the emphatic diaglott.

I say it because it is so obvious that it has been altered, because in the light of the rest of Scripture it doesn't actually make sense the way it is generally read.

Just because people like you let humans influence them, doesn't mean that we all do. I am influenced by nothing but holy spirit and Scripture. I only accept what Jehovah's Witnesses publish if it fits Scripture, the same way that I accept what you say on the rare occasions when it does also.

Scripture is all. It is the only record of God's thoughts that we have. And only it can be used to properly interpret itself. Man cannot do so unless guided by holy spirit.

I guess that's why Jesus said we had to become as children. Because children often have a greater clarity of thought,, less cluttered by prejudices such as yours, and therefore more inclined to understand the help they need. As a child I knew I could not understand Scripture without help. I also knew, as you prove every time you post, that man cannot be trusted to interpret Scripture.

That idea has since been backed up by Scripture itself, telling us not to rely on ourselves, telling us not to rely on the words of "earthling man".

Jeremiah 10:23 I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

Notice the importance of that Scripture?

It does not belong to earthling man who is walking even to direct his step. Precisely the same sort of hyperbole that Jesus used so often in his teaching. But what it is saying is that man needs God's help, and that applies more to spiritual things than it does to anything else. Our way through life has to be guided by holy spirit, hence the things that holy spirit brings out in a person that is being granted it.

Galatians 5:22-24 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Moreover, those who belong to Christ Jesus impaled the flesh together with its passions and desires.

As I said before I pity you stumbling around in your blindness.
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 7:14:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?

Well, follow this link for yourself and check out the difference between the English in the interlinear section and the English only column you will see:

http://archive.org...

As you will see the English-language wording in the interlinear column is as follows:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word.

My KJV says, "In the beginning" not "In a beginning."
interestingly when you move over to the English-only column you see something very different:

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was god.

So what are the changes:

a beginning has become the Beginning -

Not in the original Antioch text it hasn't.

The beginning of creation
The beginning of the preparation of the earth for habitation

Those two are the same thing within the 7 days.

The next change in that verse is from "the Word" to "the Logos". - I have no idea why but since the words have the same meaning I don't suppose it matters.

Then we have a change from "the God" to simply "God" - why remove the definite article? Unless it's to take away from the fact that the 2nd occurrence of a word meaning God is without one.

The Antioch text has always said, "God."

Again we have the change from "the Word" to "the Logos" - for which my comment is exactly the same.

One is English and one is Greek.

Since there are so many other Scripture is which definitively counter the Trinity, and described Christ as a created being, and the only one created by God alone, the translation which describes the word as a god, indicating his divine nature, not his title, is considerably more acceptable.

Jesus Christ is the literal spoken Word of God. He is God. Just like my voice is my voice. It exits me and can be recorded and used separately from me, but it is me. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. God's Word lives in the name of Jesus Christ.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 7:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 7:14:58 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/26/2013 1:23:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?

Well, follow this link for yourself and check out the difference between the English in the interlinear section and the English only column you will see:

http://archive.org...

As you will see the English-language wording in the interlinear column is as follows:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word.

My KJV says, "In the beginning" not "In a beginning."
interestingly when you move over to the English-only column you see something very different:

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was god.

So what are the changes:

a beginning has become the Beginning -

Not in the original Antioch text it hasn't.

The beginning of creation
The beginning of the preparation of the earth for habitation

Those two are the same thing within the 7 days.

The next change in that verse is from "the Word" to "the Logos". - I have no idea why but since the words have the same meaning I don't suppose it matters.

Then we have a change from "the God" to simply "God" - why remove the definite article? Unless it's to take away from the fact that the 2nd occurrence of a word meaning God is without one.

The Antioch text has always said, "God."

Again we have the change from "the Word" to "the Logos" - for which my comment is exactly the same.

One is English and one is Greek.

Since there are so many other Scripture is which definitively counter the Trinity, and described Christ as a created being, and the only one created by God alone, the translation which describes the word as a god, indicating his divine nature, not his title, is considerably more acceptable.

Jesus Christ is the literal spoken Word of God. He is God. Just like my voice is my voice. It exits me and can be recorded and used separately from me, but it is me. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God. God's Word lives in the name of Jesus Christ.

My point exactly, it's been changed to that from "a beginning".

The problem anyone has with translating ancient Greek, is that there was in fact no indefinite article, and the need for one was covered in 2 different ways.

Firstly the Greeks had a number of different but related words the different meanings they wished to have applied to the subject of those words.

For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it.

However the English word god has a number of meanings, not just the title of the being addressed. It can also mean the state of being divine substance, in other words spirit being. In that case it would be without the definite article, as well as being a different word.

My opponent in this discussion insists that there is no reason for inserting the indefinite article in an interlinear translation, even if the need for such is implied by the wording, and the sense of the statement.

However what you do when translating a language which does not have the indefinite article? You either leave it out everywhere you inserted where it is required. Read any passage, of any length, and then think yourself how it would sound without the indefinite article in it, considering that the English language has no other way of indicating it is needed.

I think you will find that you will get is confused over the meanings of some passages as Trinitarians are over the meaning John 1:1.

You don't have to be a linguistic expert to understand that.

Unfortunately for us English, especially the English as it has been reduced to over the last couple of centuries is an extremely ambiguous language, using one word for so many different meanings, some of which even contradict each other.

The Greek language however, was considerably more specific, having a different word for every aspect of a similar meaning.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:10:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules.
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
8/27/2013 10:26:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:10:21 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules.

You really can't put them behind you can you.

There is nothing inconsistent about the Jehovah's Witnesses stance, but that is not where I got that from, I got what little I understand of Greek Grammar and word usage,, from a Greek JW who explained it all too me. I assume that a Greek would know his native language even in it's ancient forms. I have known a few Greeks who became Witnesses, having been Greek Orthodox before it.

You see, again you make so many assumptions. Just because I am not a linguist does not mean I have never known those who are, and been taught what little I needed by them.

I have met Witnesses from a great number of different countries, especially when attending the International Conventions they hold every few years, when Brothers and Sisters from many countries are sent to whichever country is holding the International Convention that year. Unfortunately I don't recall meeting a Hebrew speaker, I wish I had, I know they exist.

That is also one reason why I take you to task for assuming that the Translation Committee was comprised of unqualified Brothers. Whilst it will never be possible tom know for sure, I do know that there are a great many highly educated JWs around, they aren't all thickos like me.

On top of that, though I know you don't believe it, the only qualification of any value is that granted by the power of holy spirit, not by men.

Unfortunately for you, you value the words of men too highly. Fortunately for I do not, and never have, which was the source of much friction between my teachers and I.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 11:29:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 11:59:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 4:34:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "The evidence is that for some reason the translation of the Greek text at John 1:1 has been changed deliberately.

Why would I say that?"

Anna: Because the WatchTower says it - and they are spirit-guided folks who are actually the "faithful and discreet slave"?

*****

There's no need in responding to the rest as you once again advertise your own ignorance by thinking that the phrase "a god" can appear ANYWHERE in any legitimate interlinear. I'm not talking about John 1: 1 in particular - the phrase "a god" cannot appear ANYWHERE in ANY VERSE in an interlinear.

Thus the word "theou" in Acts 12: 22 is correctly rendered "of god" in an interlinear. In our standard translations, it reads "of a god". Both the interlinears and standard translations are correct. The reason that "a god" is not found in an interlinear is that NO SUCH PHRASE EXISTS.

(Same thing with the word "theon" in Acts 28: 6. A correct interlinear renders the word "god". An incorrect interlinear might render it "a god".)

You're much more confusing than us saints who speak for our Creator.

Jeremiah 15:
15: Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 12:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 11:29:01 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:05:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil. How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths. Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. -Proverbs
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:19:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:05:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

@annanicole,

You nailed it! Perfect refutation!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:27:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"You nailed it! Perfect refutation!"

Nahhhh ... he'll invoke "spirit guidance" or something, then say he's prayed for "godly wisdom", then quote John 17: 3, and move on. Every time he's wrong, it turns out that he's not wrong because the spirit illuminated him.
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
8/27/2013 2:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:27:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
"You nailed it! Perfect refutation!"

Nahhhh ... he'll invoke "spirit guidance" or something, then say he's prayed for "godly wisdom", then quote John 17: 3, and move on. Every time he's wrong, it turns out that he's not wrong because the spirit illuminated him.

Well considering you have yet to prove me wrong.............................................except of course in your own eyes and the eyes of those who also deny the action of holy spirit.

And of course I claim spirit guidance, the credit always goes to God for everything. as you will one day find to your cost.

And you still haven't explained why the translation was altered, lol between the two columns, after all, if, as you claim, he got it wrong why would he then either not put it right in the interlinear and carry that on, rather than leave a trail of evidence that he had altered it?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 2:02:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:19:43 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:05:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

@annanicole,

You nailed it! Perfect refutation!

Nothing's perfect, especially when it goes against scripture as Anna invariably does, unless of course she outright denies it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 2:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil. How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths. Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. -Proverbs

That is perfectly correct, and those who fear God also trust him, as I do.

What gets me is that people insult God and Christ by claiming that they wouldn't do what they promised to do.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee. -Proverbs
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 5:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 4:05:15 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee. -Proverbs

The only problem with that perfectly accurate and valid Scripture, is when you give up on trying to save someone's life, even if they don't want it saved.
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 6:03:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 5:56:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 4:05:15 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee. -Proverbs

The only problem with that perfectly accurate and valid Scripture, is when you give up on trying to save someone's life, even if they don't want it saved.

The problem is... people have a problem with that scripture. The beginning is of what to do and how to act is God and His Word. He gave that instruction here. Praise be to God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 6:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

You really can't get away from your obsession with Jehovah's Witnesses can you? But then I suppose it's all part of your inability to focus on anything other than mankind.

If you want to understand Scripture you have to forget about the human, think only of interest only in the divine. Or are Scripture puts it take on the mind of Christ.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant YOU to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

Philippians 2:5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,

And what was that "mental attitude"?

A complete and utter reliance on his father, and on holy spirit.

My attitude completely and one I keep trying to get you to consider.

Forget the people, concentrate on the teachings and compare them to Scripture. Any translation doesn't matter just so long as it Scripture.

Why doesn't it matter what translation?

Because with God spirit to guide you and help you to recognise the mistranslations, the additions and the subtractions, you can find the truth in any translation.

True Satan has been allowed to mess about with it hence those mistranslations, additions, and subtractions. But God has protected the substance of his word, so the truth is, as they say, in there somewhere
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 7:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 6:04:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

You really can't get away from your obsession with Jehovah's Witnesses can you? But then I suppose it's all part of your inability to focus on anything other than mankind.

If you want to understand Scripture you have to forget about the human, think only of interest only in the divine. Or are Scripture puts it take on the mind of Christ.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant YOU to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

Philippians 2:5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,

And what was that "mental attitude"?

A complete and utter reliance on his father, and on holy spirit.

My attitude completely and one I keep trying to get you to consider.

Forget the people, concentrate on the teachings and compare them to Scripture. Any translation doesn't matter just so long as it Scripture.

Why doesn't it matter what translation?

Because with God spirit to guide you and help you to recognise the mistranslations, the additions and the subtractions, you can find the truth in any translation.

True Satan has been allowed to mess about with it hence those mistranslations, additions, and subtractions. But God has protected the substance of his word, so the truth is, as they say, in there somewhere

I was reading John 1 and the Holy Spirit told me that you were a liar.
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:08:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 7:52:23 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/27/2013 6:04:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

You really can't get away from your obsession with Jehovah's Witnesses can you? But then I suppose it's all part of your inability to focus on anything other than mankind.

If you want to understand Scripture you have to forget about the human, think only of interest only in the divine. Or are Scripture puts it take on the mind of Christ.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant YOU to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

Philippians 2:5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,

And what was that "mental attitude"?

A complete and utter reliance on his father, and on holy spirit.

My attitude completely and one I keep trying to get you to consider.

Forget the people, concentrate on the teachings and compare them to Scripture. Any translation doesn't matter just so long as it Scripture.

Why doesn't it matter what translation?

Because with God spirit to guide you and help you to recognise the mistranslations, the additions and the subtractions, you can find the truth in any translation.

True Satan has been allowed to mess about with it hence those mistranslations, additions, and subtractions. But God has protected the substance of his word, so the truth is, as they say, in there somewhere

I was reading John 1 and the Holy Spirit told me that you were a liar.

Luke 12:10
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 11:41:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I tender the post again, since MCB felt the urge to ramble about his nonsensical "holy spirit leading" - which always leads him right to the musings and speculations of the WatchTower. He objects to it, but it's true.

DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.
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
8/28/2013 5:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 11:41:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
I tender the post again, since MCB felt the urge to ramble about his nonsensical "holy spirit leading" - which always leads him right to the musings and speculations of the WatchTower. He objects to it, but it's true.

DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

I object to it being nonsensical. It is anything that denies that Christ and God would keep their promises to provide it tat is nonsensical, and insulting to them also as it makes them out to be liars.

There is no inconsistency in the NWT, it is completely consistent with the development of God's plan from creation onward, and that is what counts.

In fact your confusion results from putting the word of man over and above the word of God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:15:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:08:31 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/27/2013 7:52:23 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/27/2013 6:04:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

You really can't get away from your obsession with Jehovah's Witnesses can you? But then I suppose it's all part of your inability to focus on anything other than mankind.

If you want to understand Scripture you have to forget about the human, think only of interest only in the divine. Or are Scripture puts it take on the mind of Christ.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant YOU to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

Philippians 2:5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,

And what was that "mental attitude"?

A complete and utter reliance on his father, and on holy spirit.

My attitude completely and one I keep trying to get you to consider.

Forget the people, concentrate on the teachings and compare them to Scripture. Any translation doesn't matter just so long as it Scripture.

Why doesn't it matter what translation?

Because with God spirit to guide you and help you to recognise the mistranslations, the additions and the subtractions, you can find the truth in any translation.

True Satan has been allowed to mess about with it hence those mistranslations, additions, and subtractions. But God has protected the substance of his word, so the truth is, as they say, in there somewhere

I was reading John 1 and the Holy Spirit told me that you were a liar.

Luke 12:10
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Again perfectly true, because whoever denies the word that has been passed down to us by the power of holy spirit, denies everything about God and his plan. It doesn't matter who said what in God's word, they were all given the information via holy spirit and therefore to deny it, to blaspheme against it as such as Anna and her ilk do, is to blaspheme not just God and Christ, but also all of his servants from Creation until now.

If that made holy spirit a person, it would make it more important than God himself, which is a ridiculous suggestion.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:16:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 7:52:23 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
At 8/27/2013 6:04:34 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 3:33:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
DId anybody notice MCB's explanation of why and how he can arbitrarily set aside his fabricated rule? Of course, it might as well be set aside - it's worthless anyhow; nonetheless, he sets is aside on any passage which does not agree with his views, even if its the FIRST SENTENCE OF A BOOK! Then he appeals to context! How can there be context in the first sentence?

MCB: "For instance the Greek words translated "God" can apply to the title of the one being addressed as God, in which case it would have the definite article "ho" in front of it."

Anna: Looks as if you've been reading WatchTower material again. There is no rule in Greek which states the preceding. Now you are saying that unless it is "ho theos" or "ton theon" or whatever, that it is simply "a god".

John 1: 6, "egeneto anthropos apestalmenos para theou onoma auto"

ASV: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John."

Was John simply sent from "a god"? I do not see any definite article in the Greek. Do you?

See how inconsistent the NWT is? They can't go FIVE VERSES without violating one of their own rules?

I didn't see much of an answer as why John 1: 1 is translated one way, based upon some made-up rule - yet five verses later, John 1: 6 is translated differently. I did learn, however, that MadCornish has had some Greek-speaking friends.

MCB: I did tell you why Anna, it's called context that thing you spend so much time ignoring.

Anna: It's sorta hard to have much of a context in the first sentence of a book! No, the translation of John 1: 1 is not based upon context any more than Gen 1: 1 is translated by context. The main context that the NWT translators employed was their own theological principles. "Jesus is not God, so in that context we'll add an 'a'."

However, it turns out that this fabricated rule is frequently over-ruled by what you call context. Not much of a rule, is it? It sorta looks like it's a rule when you need it, then it's put on the shelf when you don't.

So we all see the utter inconsistency of the NWT just by looking at the first ten verses of John. They can't even get that right. That's what happens when theology is placed above grammar and linguistics.

You really can't get away from your obsession with Jehovah's Witnesses can you? But then I suppose it's all part of your inability to focus on anything other than mankind.

If you want to understand Scripture you have to forget about the human, think only of interest only in the divine. Or are Scripture puts it take on the mind of Christ.

Romans 15:5 Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant YOU to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

Philippians 2:5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus,

And what was that "mental attitude"?

A complete and utter reliance on his father, and on holy spirit.

My attitude completely and one I keep trying to get you to consider.

Forget the people, concentrate on the teachings and compare them to Scripture. Any translation doesn't matter just so long as it Scripture.

Why doesn't it matter what translation?

Because with God spirit to guide you and help you to recognise the mistranslations, the additions and the subtractions, you can find the truth in any translation.

True Satan has been allowed to mess about with it hence those mistranslations, additions, and subtractions. But God has protected the substance of his word, so the truth is, as they say, in there somewhere

I was reading John 1 and the Holy Spirit told me that you were a liar.

Then it was Satan's spirit not God's (1 John 4:1)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:20:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 6:03:43 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/27/2013 5:56:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/27/2013 4:05:15 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:18:50 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee. -Proverbs

The only problem with that perfectly accurate and valid Scripture, is when you give up on trying to save someone's life, even if they don't want it saved.

The problem is... people have a problem with that scripture. The beginning is of what to do and how to act is God and His Word. He gave that instruction here. Praise be to God.

Again, perfectly true. Scripture, which whether directly inspired or simply guided, is God's word, and therefore must be the final arbiter, and every understanding must be subject to the context of the whole of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

That means having no regard for man's idea of dividing it into "New" and "Old" Testaments. They are both parts of the same contiguous whole.