John 1:1

Originally posted by roigam
(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Many people believe that the lower case god (theos-GR.) in this Scripture makes Jesus a part of the trinity.
Then would (2 Corinthians 4:4) among whom the god of this system of things.....which uses the same lower case god (theos-GR.) to refer to Satan.....make Sa ...[text shortened]... discussed in this forum before.

Evenso, I feel certain no one has noticed this point before.

Are you seriously suggesting that because the word "god" is used to describe Satan, it therefore proves that the use of the word "God" to describe Jesus/the Word is comparable? Please tell me this not the best you can get from your Greek Interlinear.

Originally posted by roigam
Sorry, there are at least 7 others original translations
that say "the Word was a god" or
"the Word was divine" or
"the Logos was a god"
We got that translation from other Bibles, just not the antiquated KJV that still believes in unicorns.
Look it up.
Anyway enough for tonight. Bon Soir

For every translation that says "a god" there are dozens that say "God". Robbie ad I went head to head over this some time back, I think he found 3 among about 50 translations.

Of course the point is moot; the Jehovah's Witness organisation has a track record of false prophesy, bullying its members into submission through shunning, depriving its children of Christmas and birthdays, depriving its members of the right to vote and covering up child sex abuse. A few erroneous scriptures hardly make a difference when you take in the big picture.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It might help if you used a real Bible instead of the book your church commissioned to back up the made-up dogma you already had in place.

what about the Sahidic Coptic text, one of the earliest known manuscripts dated to around the third century, would that do?

SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1

Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
Auw neunoute pe pshaje

A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:

In the beginning existed the word
And the word existed in the presence of the god
And a god was the word

Unlike the contemporaneous versions in Syriac and Latin, the Sahidic Coptic language has both the definite and indefinite grammatical articles in its syntactical system. The Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article in identifying the God that the Word was with, and they used the Coptic indefinite article in identifying the divinity of the Word. This is a feature in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions.

http://copticjohn.blogspot.nl

Originally posted by divegeester
For every translation that says "a god" there are dozens that say "God". Robbie ad I went head to head over this some time back, I think he found 3 among about 50 translations.

You have not enough knowledge. You don't know anything about translation,. You are in effect Biblically illiterate. Please don't flatter yourself that you went head to head, all you have is your dogmas and prejudices which often or not translates to religious bigotry, lets be realistic. Have you an idea what a predicate noun is? Can you tell us why the translations which read 'the Word was God', ignore the Greek idiom and basic rules of English grammar.

All that is required is a little reading and a little understanding but all you can do is say, this translation says this therefore it must be true, a nonsense argument for until you can tell us why a translation is translated the way it is you are simply projecting your ignorance.

Your argument of three out of fifty is logically fallacious, an argument ad populum, many have translated it this way therefore it is and look at you, you cannot tell us a single thing about why the verse is translated they way it is leading us to the inevitable conclusion that you really don't know.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you seriously suggesting that because the word "god" is used to describe Satan, it therefore proves that the use of the word "God" to describe Jesus/the Word is comparable? Please tell me this not the best you can get from your Greek Interlinear.

No he is telling you that there are other powerful spiritual entities that are termed gods and that to assume that when an entity is termed god it means that its a reference to the Almighty cannot be logically nor rationally substantiated. How this simply fact could evade you is nothing more than a testimony to your dimness, give it up you are out of your depth here.

Originally posted by Eladar
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm

According to this interlinear translation it say "and God was the Word"

You are simply doing a lexical word for word comparison as if it has any efficacy. You are unaware that the 'theos' in the clause 'theos en ho logos', has no definite article meaning that its a predicate noun, right? You know what a predicate noun is right? You know how we express a predicate noun in English right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Name the translations please

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,
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” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, 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 Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about the Sahidic Coptic text, one of the earliest known manuscripts dated to around the third century, would that do?

SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1

Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
Auw neunoute pe pshaje

A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:

In the beginning existed the word
And the word existe ...[text shortened]... a feature in both the Sahidic and the Bohairic Coptic versions.

http://copticjohn.blogspot.nl

Gosh, "blogspot"?

Does he have a Facebook page too?

Originally posted by FMF
Gosh, "blogspot"?

Does he have a Facebook page too?

How did the entire content of the site manage to escape your keen grasp.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How did the content of the site manage to escape your keen grasp.

Whether it's "a god" or "God" is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. What is interesting, however, is that you are citing something 'published' by someone called "Memra" using "Blogger" who has picked up 12 followers. in 10 years, and who has started several "blogspot" blogs on exactly the same topic, all of which have spluttered to a halt almost immediately, and all of which have picked up a similar tiny number of followers, or less. It's your decisions and your behaviour that are interesting, robbie, not the credibility or authority of your chosen source or its creator "Memra".

Originally posted by FMF
Whether it's "a god" or "God" is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. What is interesting, however, is that you are citing something 'published' by someone called "Memra" using "Blogger" who has picked up 12 followers. in 10 years, and who has started several "blogspot" blogs on exactly the same topic, all of which have spluttered to a halt almost im ...[text shortened]... eresting, robbie, not the credibility or authority of your chosen source or its creator "Memra".

The accurate translation of the text is not dependent on your or anyone else's personal preferences and its ludicrous to think that it is. But thats you all over, a preposterous little man! Yes there is some leeway but accurate translation cannot do away with grammatical construct simply because the translator feels like it.

Your tedious adhominem and lame attempt at trolling on the basis that information came from a blog or that it has a certain number of followers is simply a reflection of how empty your arguments are. The funniest thing is though, you don't seem to realise it or if you do you seem to think that these smoke and mirrors trolling tricks have some efficacy. You deserve to be mocked as the two-bit Side-show Bob you are!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The accurate translation of the text is not dependent on your or anyone else's personal preferences and its ludicrous to think that it is. But thats you all over, a preposterous little man! Yes there is some leeway but accurate translation cannot do away with grammatical construct simply because the translator feels like it.

Your tedious adhomi ...[text shortened]... on of how empty your arguments are. The funniest thing is though, you don't seem to realise it.

I don't care whether you are a polytheist or a monotheist, robbie. I really don't. I am presenting no "arguments" about your apparent polytheism at all. I just think your behaviour - in pursuit of propagating your ideology - citing a "blogspot" in cyberspace of such a slight and inconsequential kind like that - your decision to do that - and your intellectual behaviour generally - is all fascinating. That's all.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't care whether you are a polytheist or a monotheist, robbie. I really don't. I am presenting no "arguments" about your apparent polytheism at all. I just think your behaviour - in pursuit of propagating your ideology - citing a "blogspot" in cyberspace of such a slight and inconsequential kind like that - your decision to do that - and your intellectual behaviour generally - is all fascinating. That's all.

More predictable trolling. Either address the issue of accurate translation of John 1:1 or annoy someone else with your inane babbling FMF.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
More predictable trolling. Either address the issue of accurate translation of John 1:1 or annoy someone else with your inane babbling FMF.

Is it it that you do not have a more credible or substantial source to cite than the "blogspot" you linked to?