The Triune God in Revelation 4&5

Originally posted by divegeester
But it doesn't in Greek.

And as you gleefully pointed out earlier "one does not translate in a lexical fashion".

And yet the the JWs chose to put the "a" in.

Interesting.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Good grief, can anyone help jeester? anyone?

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes you can.

1. Why is there a space between Lyons and Spakowski?

2. Why is there an "a" (was "a" god) in the NWT translation of Jn 1:1

One last try,

translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos.

Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

New World translation of the Holy scriptures Appendix 6A

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One last try,

translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, tha ...[text shortened]... one and the same as God himself.

New World translation of the Holy scriptures Appendix 6A[/b]

Let me get this right. This is a thread on The Triune God in Revelation 4&5.

One of you - Robbie, denies the Father and the Son are God because the Son is a created angel.

And the other of you - Divegeester, denies the Father and the Son as distinct from each other yet simultaneously living. ( I did not say separated, but distinct).

And both of you disbelieve and hate that God would punish forever those who reject the Son of God. Excuse me for attempting to relate this last round of exchanges to the OP of the thread.

Concerning the Trinity robbie and divegeester are both coming at this revelation from two opposite extremes.

First -

The eternal judgment of the lake of fire is indicated in Revelation 4. It is seen in the sea of clear glass which is before the throne of God.

" And before the throne there was as it were a glassy sea like crystal, ..." (Rev. 4:6a)

" And I saw as it were a glassy sea mingled with fire and those who come away victorious from the beast and from his image and from the number of his name standing on the glassy sea, having harps of God.

And they sing the song of Moses, the slave of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and wonderful are Your works, Lord God the Almighty!

Righteous and true are Your ways, O King of the nations!

Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name ? For You alone are holy; for all the nations will come and worship before You, for Your righteous judgments have been manifested." (Rev. 15:2-4)

Originally posted by sonship
Let me get this right. This is a thread on [b]The Triune God in Revelation 4&5.

One of you - Robbie, denies the Father and the Son are God because the Son is a created angel.

And the other of you - Divegeester, denies the Father and the Son as distinct from each other yet simultaneously living. ( I did not say separated, but distinct).

And bo ...[text shortened]... a of glass becomes the lake of fire, an eternal judgment upon the enemies of God and His people.[/b]

To stand on the sea of glass is reminiscent of the Israelites standing on the sure of the Red Sea after God had drowned Pharaoh and his army of chariots in the judging waters . But Israel came through safely to stand on the SHORE [edited] and sea their enemies vanguished.

The sea of glass becomes the lake of fire, an eternal judgment upon the enemies of God and His people.

Originally posted by sonship
Let me get this right. This is a thread on [b]The Triune God in Revelation 4&5.

One of you - Robbie, denies the Father and the Son are God because the Son is a created angel.

And the other of you - Divegeester, denies the Father and the Son as distinct from each other yet simultaneously living. ( I did not say separated, but distinct).

And bo ...[text shortened]... a of glass becomes the lake of fire, an eternal judgment upon the enemies of God and His people.[/b]

Originally posted by sonship
Let me get this right. This is a thread on [b]The Triune God in Revelation 4&5.

One of you - Robbie, denies the Father and the Son are God because the Son is a created angel.

And the other of you - Divegeester, denies the Father and the Son as distinct from each other yet simultaneously living. ( I did not say separated, but distinct).

And bo ...[text shortened]... a of glass becomes the lake of fire, an eternal judgment upon the enemies of God and His people.[/b]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why have the majority of translators ignored the Greek idiom and translated a singular predicate noun as if it was preceded by the definite article, when its not. This is what I want to know. Can you explain why?

Originally posted by divegeester
Why there an "a" in English added by your "careful translators"?

The better translation is to leave the "a" out as there is no word for a or an in Greek is there? And yet they chose to add it in.

Simply repeating that there is no predicate noun in Greek is NOT an excuse to add words in. These is no reason to translate with the indefinite article ...[text shortened]... h is correct. I.e. "The" beginning, not a beginning, which would be implying lots of beginnings.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why there an "a" in English added by your "careful translators"?

The better translation is to leave the "a" out as there is no word for a or an in Greek is there? And yet they chose to add it in.

Simply repeating that there is no predicate noun in Greek is NOT an excuse to add words in. These is no reason to translate with the indefinite article ...[text shortened]... h is correct. I.e. "The" beginning, not a beginning, which would be implying lots of beginnings.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is it about the Greek text that you cited and the New World translation rendering of that text that you disagree with or find objectionable.

Originally posted by FMF
You can translate it how you want robbie. I am more interested in roigam's false claim.

Take a look: http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were telling us how the New world translation diverges from the Greek text at John 1:1