1 edit
Above the previous paragraph J N Darby, an able translator of both Hebrew and Greek, also wrote this concerning John 8 :
Moreover, they were neither really, nor morally, the children of Abraham before God, although they were so according to the flesh; for they sought to kill Jesus. They were not children of God; had they been, they would have loved Jesus who came from God. They were the children of the devil and would do his works.
Observe here, that to understand the meaning of the word is the way to apprehend the force of the words. One does not learn the definition of words and then the things; one learns the things, and then the meaning of the words is evident.
They begin to resist the testimony, conscious that He was making Himself greater than all those whom they had leant upon. They rail upon Him because of His words; and by their opposition the Lord is induced to explain Himself more clearly; until, having declared that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and the Jews applying this to His age as man, He announces positively that He is the One who calls Himself I am-the supreme name of God, that He is God Himself-He whom they pretended to know as having revealed Himself in the bush.
[My bolding ]
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/john-darbys-synopsis-of-the-new-testament/john/john-8.html
Originally posted by FMFYou search for the posts i am not searching through thousands of posts and no the claim is not untrue as has been pointed out, at the very least its unsubstantiated, not its not untrue. Either way i have read the book and you have not.
Show me where you quoted "extensively" from the book. You appear to have been making untrue claims, robbie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut robbie, you didn't post thousands of times. You posted only 41 times on Thread 153415.
You search for the posts i am not searching through thousands of posts and no the claim is not untrue as has been pointed out, at the very least its unsubstantiated, not its not untrue. Either way i have read the book and you have not.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFUhu but its not the only thread, is it? either way i have read the book and you have not. Now the question that springs to mind is why would anyone get a book only to read the appendix?
But robbie, you didn't post thousands of times. You posted only 41 times on Thread 153415.
Originally posted by sonshipthis is nonsense Jesus is never presented himself as God himself as has been pointed out on numerous occasions.
J N Darby did translate the whole Bible - both Old and New Testament. In his Synopsis of the Bible I found this comment on [b]John 8.
[quote] But here He presents Himself as the Witness, the Word, the Word made flesh, the Son of God, but still the Word, God Himself. In the narrative at the beginning of the chapter He is a testimony to the conscienc ...[text shortened]... /www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/john-darbys-synopsis-of-the-new-testament/john/john-8.html[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFA direct quotation form the book:
I'd say you've been caught in a lie, robbie. If you choose to clear the matter up at some point, I'll be happy to withdraw this deduction.
the ability to accurately evaluate: (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and (3) historical and cultural environment as the basis for valid assessment of Bible translation.
Thread now closed.
I would say that your assertions of lying are a lie FMF.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, robbie, those couple a dozen words can be obtained in a matter of seconds using Google.
A direct quotation form the book:
the ability to accurately evaluate: (1) linguistic content, (2) literary context, and (3) historical and cultural environment as the basis for valid assessment of Bible translation.
Thread now closed.
I would say that your assertions of lying are a lie FMF.
What you stand accused of lying about is your claim that you "quoted the book extensively" on Thread 153415 "in my discussions with R J Hinds, Jaywill and Suzzianne on doctrinal matters relating to translational bias."
This is patently and blatantly not true.
7 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo i did not state that i quoted extensively on a single thread. What i actually stated was that i have in the past quoted extensively from the book in discussion with R J Hinds, Suzzianne, Jaywill and others in reply to an insinuation that i had not read the book. I have never stated that my quotation from the book was limited to a single thread, you simply made that up, but if assertions of lying are all you have FMF i think my time might be better spent elsewhere, don't you? This is not the first time that you have been caught attempting to misrepresent what others have stated, but its pretty much parr for the course with you.
Yes, robbie, those couple a dozen words can be obtained in a matter of seconds using Google.
What you stand accused of lying about is your claim that you "quoted the book extensively" on Thread 153415 "in my discussions with R J Hinds, Jaywill and Suzzianne on doctrinal matters relating to translational bias."
This is patently and blatantly not true.
Here is my clainm here,
I have read the book and quoted from it extensively in my discussions with R J Hinds, Jaywill and Suzzianne on doctrinal matters relating to translational bias
Can you tell the forum where i state that i have quoted extensively on a single thread FMF?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI asked for a link that substantiated your claim and you gave me Thread 153415.
Here is my clainm here,
I have read the book and quoted from it extensively in my discussions with R J Hinds, Jaywill and Suzzianne on doctrinal matters relating to translational bias
Can you tell the forum where i state that i have quoted extensively on a single thread FMF?
Originally posted by FMFJohn is a doctor', the predicate noun 'doctor' is preceded by the indefinite article 'a', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'John is doctor.'
I asked for a link that substantiated your claim and you gave me Thread 153415.
Gregory is an actor, the predicate noun, 'actor', is preceded this time by the indefinite article, 'an', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'Gregory is actor.'
direct quotation from the book
https://redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-alpha-and-the-omega.157906/page-4
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere are the extensive quotes from the book in the discussion with R J Hinds, Suzzianne, Jaywill on Thread 153415 ?
John is a doctor', the predicate noun 'doctor' is preceded by the indefinite article 'a', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'John is doctor.'
Gregory is an actor, the predicate noun, 'actor', is preceded this time by the indefinite article, 'an', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'Gregory is actor. ...[text shortened]... from the book
https://redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-alpha-and-the-omega.157906/page-4
Originally posted by FMFI have just reproduced the claim that i made, it says nothing about limiting my replies to a single thread, you simply made it up, it also states nothing about thousands of anything, again you simply lyingly made it up, its what you do FMF because you are empty and devoid of anything of real substance. Its what we get when we engage with you, petty assertions of lying.
I asked for a link that substantiated your claim and you gave me Thread 153415.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have not claimed that i have limited my quotations to a single thread, if i have produce it now.
Where are the extensive quotes from the book in the discussion with R J Hinds, Suzzianne, Jaywill on Thread 153415 ?