Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

John 1:1, a list of translations.

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"[8]

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

1864 "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

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

1867 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

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

1955 "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

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

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1962, 1979 "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

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

And not one mention of the NWT, lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.
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
5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

God-like one, also fits well in with the rest of scripture, and in fact would have been my personal choice.

A god is equally good.

All of the above, and one or to more all fit in with the essence, the meaning, of the scripture.

After all, whilst you can be yourself, you cannot be with yourself.

The point is far less about the actual words, than about the tenor of the passage, which means that it has to fit in with the idea of father and son, only begotten son, head and next "rung" down, and the difference between being the one from whom all things come as opposed to through who all things come, including our salvation.

It also has to reflect the fact that God's son, as he said when on earth, cannot, does not allow himself to, do anything of his own initiative, but always does what his father wants as a good son should.

All of the above completely precludes the "standard" translations of , as well as the "standard" version of John 8:58 which has been doctored to fit in with the equally doctored version of Exodus 3:14 which has the tense all wrong.

In John 8:58 Jesus is saying that he was around long before Abraham, which is true. He was not saying that Abraham saw his day, but that he was looking forward to his day, and I am sure will enjoy it when he is resurrected to see it.

In Exodus 3:14 Jehovah was in fact looking forward telling Moses, basically that he was the one who would make things happen, which he was doing, is doing, and will do. Hence more accurate understandings of the Hebrew phrase used run along the lines if "I will be whatever I will be" or I shall cause to become", so I AM doesn't even enter the equation at either end.

Nor does it make sense.

In John 8:58 the only things that make sense are things along the lines of "I was" or "I have been", because they are the only things which are remotely accurate.

It it isn't true and isn't logical, its a mistranslation.

Do you understand that?

Probably not.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:49:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

In John 8:58 the only things that make sense are things along the lines of "I was" or "I have been", because they are the only things which are remotely accurate.

You'll have to take that up with John and Jesus. If Jesus meant "I was" or "I have been", he had every opportunity to say just that. Instead, He used the present tense: "I am". Remember, when asked to cite a single recognized Greek scholar who said that eimi could possibly be translated as "have been" in a simple declarative, you couldn't find a one. Instead, you emulated the BotchTower and tried to detour us off through the Syriac language first.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:52:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - 1852 Douay-Rheims.

Works for me.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:52:46 PM, Geogeer wrote:
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - 1852 Douay-Rheims.

1582... dyslexic I suppose...

Works for me.
Brad_Watson.Miami
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:56:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"In the beginning was the algorithm, and the algorithm was with God/Fod, and the algorithm was GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4."
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 algorithm/code produces Earth's 7 continents & 4 seasons, 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each, Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU, etc.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:53:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:52:46 PM, Geogeer wrote:
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - 1852 Douay-Rheims.

1582... dyslexic I suppose...

Lol, I know that feeling. I am mildly dyslexic, and my typing fingers even more so.


Works for me.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

In John 8:58 the only things that make sense are things along the lines of "I was" or "I have been", because they are the only things which are remotely accurate.

You'll have to take that up with John and Jesus. If Jesus meant "I was" or "I have been", he had every opportunity to say just that. Instead, He used the present tense: "I am". Remember, when asked to cite a single recognized Greek scholar who said that eimi could possibly be translated as "have been" in a simple declarative, you couldn't find a one. Instead, you emulated the BotchTower and tried to detour us off through the Syriac language first.

That's the point though, he didn't use the present tense, nor did Jehovah, trinitarians have deliberately distorted the translation to prove their point. That is why they don;t fit.

It doesn't take a Greek Scholar to realise that, or a Hebrew one.

It is simply a fact that Jesus would not have deliberate misled us by using the present tense when the past tense is the only one that applies.

You may not worry about whether scripture makes sense or not, but Jehovah and his son do, that is why they guide the JWs, and I, as well as others above, to the true meanings.

Plus of course a love of truth is a vital qualification for a servant of Jehovah and Christ (John 4:23,24).

You would rather trust in the writers of lexicons trained in Satan's schools, than trust Jehovah and Christ.

I know who I believe every time. Jehovah and Christ are the only ones worthy of our full trust. Even the JWs should only be given qualified trust. Qualified by checking what they teach against God's word. Just as the Beroeans were so highly commended for doing, even when being taught by an Apostle.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:25:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:12:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

In John 8:58 the only things that make sense are things along the lines of "I was" or "I have been", because they are the only things which are remotely accurate.

You'll have to take that up with John and Jesus. If Jesus meant "I was" or "I have been", he had every opportunity to say just that. Instead, He used the present tense: "I am". Remember, when asked to cite a single recognized Greek scholar who said that eimi could possibly be translated as "have been" in a simple declarative, you couldn't find a one. Instead, you emulated the BotchTower and tried to detour us off through the Syriac language first.

That's the point though, he didn't use the present tense, nor did Jehovah, trinitarians have deliberately distorted the translation to prove their point. That is why they don;t fit.

It doesn't take a Greek Scholar to realise that, or a Hebrew one.

Then why don't you undertake to tell us exactly which Greek verb was employed in John 8: 58 because every Greek manuscript of which I am aware says He used the word "eimi" - other than the one that you are referencing, apparently.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.
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
5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective, as many of those alternative translations show. It describes the fact that they are literally of the same material as God, all are spirits together.

The only differences being that Jehovah was not created, but created his own son, who then helped in creating all the others in their ranks. All are created from God own substance, spirit, without any alteration.

Of course everything else is create from that also, but change into physical form. After all, there was nothing else to create everything from.

It is used as a descriptor of all Angelic beings since it refers to their existence, their spirit form, even their form of god-hood, which all angels posses, including Stan to whom scripture accurately refers as the god of this world.

All angels were created as gods, including Satan and the demons, in precisely the same way that some humans are designated as gods, because in it's more general context all "god" means is a being worthy of some level of respect and holding some level of authority".

Hence scripture refers to God's son as a god, to chieftains in Israel as gods, and so Satan as the God of this world.

Psalms 82:1
ASV(i) 1 God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods.

John 10:34-35
ASV(i) 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken),

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
ASV(i) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

What scripture is saying is that God's son is a god, but a lesser one than his father, as are all the angels, demons, Satan, and even humans in authority, all in their rank.

That is why when it is Jehovah to whom scripture refers it is always God, never god.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:18:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
ASV(i) 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire an occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. 15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
ASV(i) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

Those two apply equally to all outside of Jehovah's love, including you and all your beloved Lexicon writers. Satan loves to corrupt things as close to source as possible.

I appeal only to the one and only true authority and his word.I don't need to, all of the above have given you the more correct English translations of that word in the form it was used.

Proverbs 3:5
ASV(i) 5 Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding:

It's way past time you tried it.

I only care about what fits into the context and story of scripture. Your preferred version doesn't, thus it causes contradictions, not only with the rest of scripture but even within itself.

You cannot be with yourself, and be yourself at the same time.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:30:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 4:25:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:12:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:49:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

In John 8:58 the only things that make sense are things along the lines of "I was" or "I have been", because they are the only things which are remotely accurate.

You'll have to take that up with John and Jesus. If Jesus meant "I was" or "I have been", he had every opportunity to say just that. Instead, He used the present tense: "I am". Remember, when asked to cite a single recognized Greek scholar who said that eimi could possibly be translated as "have been" in a simple declarative, you couldn't find a one. Instead, you emulated the BotchTower and tried to detour us off through the Syriac language first.

That's the point though, he didn't use the present tense, nor did Jehovah, trinitarians have deliberately distorted the translation to prove their point. That is why they don;t fit.

It doesn't take a Greek Scholar to realise that, or a Hebrew one.

Then why don't you undertake to tell us exactly which Greek verb was employed in John 8: 58 because every Greek manuscript of which I am aware says He used the word "eimi" - other than the one that you are referencing, apparently.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
ASV(i) 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire an occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. 15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
ASV(i) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

Those two apply equally to all outside of Jehovah's love, including you and all your beloved Lexicon writers. Satan loves to corrupt things as close to source as possible.

I appeal only to the one and only true authority and his word.I don't need to, all of the above have given you the more correct English translations of that word in the form it was used.

Proverbs 3:5
ASV(i) 5 Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding:

It's way past time you tried it.

I only care about what fits into the context and story of scripture. Your preferred version doesn't, thus it causes contradictions, not only with the rest of scripture but even within itself.

You cannot be with yourself, and be yourself at the same time, and since scripture assures us that there is only one True God, then all others, including God's son, must be by comparison, merely gods.

Therefore your version of John 1:1 can only be wrong since it uses the upper case G for both, the indefinite article is only an additional descriptive, it is the upper case G which makes it inevitably wrong.

Or are you saying that there really are two True Gods? Because even in Trinitarian "godhead" form that is what you are saying, two distinct True Gods, albeit untied in a "godhead", which is basically a committee of three according to the Trinity teaching.

Sorry Anna, your preferred form of John 1:1 is an absolutely obvious mistranslation, no matter what your Satanically influence Lexicographers say.

Revelation 12:9
ASV(i) 9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

The whole world, notice. That includes your beloved lexicographers.

That is why followers of Jesus, like myself and the JWs have to be no part of this world, so that they are out from under the influence of Satan.

You are still very much a part of this world, thinking this worlds thoughts.

That is why you, like most of the rest of the world fulfil Jesus warning that you would hate us.

John 15:18-20
ASV(i) 18 If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:51:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. (JWFacts.com)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:50:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective

That should be easy for you to demonstrate. Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:52:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:18:26 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."
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
5/15/2015 2:05:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:52:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:18:26 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

No Anna, we have something much better. Scripture itself, which is also capable of letting us know when something is mistranslated or not.

I have always claimed that scripture interprets itself, and the fact that it does so easily show that John 1:1 has been seriously mistranslated shows that it works.

Not just for John 1:1 either, or even John 8:58, but a number of other mistranslations also, though can't remember which offhand, other than translating the Tetragrammaton as LORD or Elohim.

What's so odd about that? They were produced in a Satanically controlled environment. It's a wonder any were allowed to get it right.

Again you put your trust in men not in God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 2:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:50:16 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective

That should be easy for you to demonstrate. Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective.

Still leaning on you splintered cane eh Anna.

I'll stick with scripture thanks
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 2:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:05:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:52:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:18:26 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

No Anna, we have something much better. Scripture itself, which is also capable of letting us know when something is mistranslated or not.

No, you don't - because you are relying upon, in your words, "altered translations". If they were altered, they must have been altered from something. You said, "... which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original"

Thus far, you haven't show us, in Greek, exactly what the original said. Every Greek manuscript that I know of supports the standard translations.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 2:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:07:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:50:16 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective

That should be easy for you to demonstrate. Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective.

Still leaning on you splintered cane eh Anna.

I'll stick with scripture thanks

Well, the use of the words theios and theon are in scripture. They are both used in scripture.

You were asked to, "Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective."

Thus you are being asked for scriptures. The trouble is: you don't have any to offer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
VinceGK
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 5:48:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

I don't think there's any question about the original Greek text of John 1:1c; all available manuscripts say the same thing: namely theos en ho logos. The question is: what does it mean?

Theos by itself generally means "a god." It can mean "God." Some would argue for the reading "divine." However, the idea that it means "God" is John 1:1 would be (as Dan Wallace points out ) embryonic Sabellianism.

As Mark Ford points out in his book "Was the Word God?" this is a question we need to consider carefully for ourselves. If we're going to decide merely on the basis of educated people, scholars and translators, we might as well just give up believing in God and accepting atheism.

http://tinyurl.com...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:48:35 PM, VinceGK wrote:
Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

I don't think there's any question about the original Greek text of John 1:1c; all available manuscripts say the same thing: namely theos en ho logos. The question is: what does it mean?

Theos by itself generally means "a god." It can mean "God." Some would argue for the reading "divine." However, the idea that it means "God" is John 1:1 would be (as Dan Wallace points out ) embryonic Sabellianism.

As Mark Ford points out in his book "Was the Word God?" this is a question we need to consider carefully for ourselves. If we're going to decide merely on the basis of educated people, scholars and translators, we might as well just give up believing in God and accepting atheism.

http://tinyurl.com...

Simple. The only thing it can mean is "god (Small g) was the word". The indefinite is an optional extra which simply makes it clearer that God's son is simply a god, not the One True God.

In that context god (Small g) can have numerous meanings since it is more related to his being a powerful spirit creature, such as all angels were.

His unique quality lies in the fact that he is literally what John 1:14 calls him, God's only begotten (by creation) son. The only one created by God alone with no assistance from his son.

He is second only to his father and therefore was an, or most likely the, Archangel.

All in all it means that call them father and son, as scripture does, is 100% accurate.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:11:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:07:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:50:16 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective

That should be easy for you to demonstrate. Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective.

Still leaning on you splintered cane eh Anna.

I'll stick with scripture thanks

Well, the use of the words theios and theon are in scripture. They are both used in scripture.

You were asked to, "Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective."

Thus you are being asked for scriptures. The trouble is: you don't have any to offer.

I do not dispute that, I only dispute the common and erroneous translation of them, treating them as meaning the same thing, when the patently do not..

Hence it is more accurate to use the lower case g for the one and the upper case G for the other to denote the difference. The "a" is simply an optional extra some translators include to make the meaning clearer, since Koine Greek had no indefinite article and simply used two different forms of the same word to denote that need for one in English, as in this case.

As always though the issue boils down to the inevitable harmony of scripture which the commonly accepted version disturbs, but the alternative versions do not.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 6:12:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 2:09:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:05:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:52:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:18:26 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:27:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 4:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:44:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

The instructions were to "tell us how the original reads" - then demonstrate that the original was somehow "altered." You failed to do what and instead engaged in a bunch of rambling.

Oh it was in there, amongst the "ramblings", lol.

Don't know why you bother asking me when you so thoroughly dislike the way I answer you, lol.

LOL no, it wasn't. Surely you can give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong.

You appeal to human authorities who are influenced by Satan, as is anyone outside of Jehovah's additional protection . Thus indirectly you appeal to Satan himself.

Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

No Anna, we have something much better. Scripture itself, which is also capable of letting us know when something is mistranslated or not.

No, you don't - because you are relying upon, in your words, "altered translations". If they were altered, they must have been altered from something. You said, "... which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original"

No Anna I am not relying on either, I accept them because they do not disturb the harmony of scripture. Precisely the same reason that the JWs accept them.

The overall harmony of scripture is vital.

Thus far, you haven't show us, in Greek, exactly what the original said. Every Greek manuscript that I know of supports the standard translations.

So? That doesn't make make them right, especially in a world ruled by Satan.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 7:03:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 5:48:35 PM, VinceGK wrote:
Why, I'm appealing to the Greek texts of the New Testament. That's all we have. Thus I repeat, "Give us the "original" Greek wording of John 1: 1 since you have assumed the chore of claiming that the original as it stands in the Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Washingtonian - and in fact all other - manuscripts is wrong."

I don't think there's any question about the original Greek text of John 1:1c; all available manuscripts say the same thing: namely theos en ho logos. The question is: what does it mean?

No, there is no question about the wording of the original. Hence, nobody had "altered" it.

His statement was, "Notice how few actually agree with the 'standard' translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original."

Who knows what he's babbling about.

Theos by itself generally means "a god." It can mean "God."

Is the more common rendering "a god" or "God"?

Some would argue for the reading "divine." However, the idea that it means "God" is John 1:1 would be (as Dan Wallace points out ) embryonic Sabellianism.

Well, if Mr. Wallace said that, then I suppose he expressed his opinion.

As Mark Ford points out in his book "Was the Word God?" this is a question we need to consider carefully for ourselves. If we're going to decide merely on the basis of educated people, scholars and translators, we might as well just give up believing in God and accepting atheism.

It's not really so difficult for the common person to figure out.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 7:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 6:10:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:11:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 2:07:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/15/2015 6:50:16 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:07:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 5:34:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:39:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:31:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Notice how few actually agree with the "standard" translation, which can be shown to be deliberately altered from the original.

Well, demonstrate it. Tell us how the original reads - and give evidence of it.

most of the above would do, because the point is that to fit in with scriptures that describe God's son as a created begin, such as John 1:14 or Revelation 3:14, unless you choose to us the false definition of "beginning" which was created purely to fit the belief.

Nobody uses a "false definition" of "beginning".

Especially since every other usage of the word "beginning" in the context of creation means precisely what it should mean, "first act/s",

The word was divine is no problem because all spirit beings are divine, since all are of the same "composition" as Jehovah, and yes, that includes Satan.

It's no problem to a smatterer who ignores the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the adjective theios, translated divine, is never used as a descriptor of Satan by any NT writer.

In scripture it is used as an adjective

That should be easy for you to demonstrate. Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective.

Still leaning on you splintered cane eh Anna.

I'll stick with scripture thanks

Well, the use of the words theios and theon are in scripture. They are both used in scripture.

You were asked to, "Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective."

Thus you are being asked for scriptures. The trouble is: you don't have any to offer.

I do not dispute that, I only dispute the common and erroneous translation of them, treating them as meaning the same thing, when the patently do not..

Hence it is more accurate to use the lower case g for the one and the upper case G for the other to denote the difference. The "a" is simply an optional extra some translators include to make the meaning clearer, since Koine Greek had no indefinite article and simply used two different forms of the same word to denote that need for one in English, as in this case.

As always though the issue boils down to the inevitable harmony of scripture which the commonly accepted version disturbs, but the alternative versions do not.

You were asked to, "Show us an example of theios used as a descriptor of Satan, and show us theon used as an adjective."

After all, you claimed both. When questioned, you did not provide us with a single example of either one - and you aren't going to, either. Both comments, the one regarding Satan and the one regarding "divine" as a proper translation of theon, were just some more of your long-winded BotchTower BS.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."