Originally posted by galveston75No, I guess not if the only thing you have gotten from me is insults.
Believe me brother I have tried as hard as it gets and it's gotten no where but usually just some insult from you. So should I keep trying?
You should not have to put up with me to just get insulted. Sorry.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI told you i am uninterested in your sermons, self certified opinions and prejudices.
You apparently do not want to read the sermon I referred you to
or the extra information on Colwell's Rule. You would prefer to
jump back and forth so you can ignore points and start circular
arguments since you have nothing better to say.
I am interested in the Greek text and what it has to say. Caldwells rule is not a
valid rule of Greek grammar, it was unknown to John when he penned his text, what
is more Caldwell himself cites fifteen instances where his rule does not apply, not
only that, Caldwell himself does not know why the article should be dropped when a
definite predicate noun is written before the verb, he just claims that it is.
Caldwells rule proves nothing, it is again merely an attempt, based on nothing more
than mere opinion, to substantiate a religious bias in translation, of which, we have
now become accustomed. To summarise
1.Caldwells rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar!
2.There are many instances when a definite predictive noun does not drop the
article when placed before a verb, e.g John 6:51
3.Caldwell cannot explain why an article should be dropped, he merely claims that it
is.
4.Even if it were true, it proves nothing anyway
5.Caldwell himself cites at least fifteen exceptions contrary to his self certified rule.
Ther you go RJH , knock yourself out, id hate to think you had nothing to moan
about.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen there is also no proof that it should be translated "a God" rather
I told you i am uninterested in your sermons, self certified opinions and prejudices.
I am interested in the Greek text and what it has to say. Caldwells rule is not a
valid rule of Greek grammar, it was unknown to John when he penned his text, what
is more Caldwell himself cites fifteen instances where his rule does not apply, not
only tha ...[text shortened]... le.
Ther you go RJH , knock yourself out, id hate to think you had nothing to moan
about.
than just "God" as all other translators do. So there you have it.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsso there i have what, more self certified opinion based on more emptiness,
Then there is also no proof that it should be translated "a God" rather
than just "God" as all other translators do. So there you have it.
reflective of what? nothing more than a religious bias that has ignored and
continues to ignore the Greek structure of the ancient text, no way, your not getting
away with it.
The second instance of 'theos', is a predictive noun preceding both the the subject
and the verb, without the definite article, 'the word', is the subject with the definite
article, thus it does not describe the act of doing something, but tells us something
about the state or condition or character of the subject. This you cannot, nor will not
deny. Its clearly written in the ancient text. Thus we now understand that 'an
anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express
the nature or character of the subject' - Harner 1973 page 75, thus the nature or
character of the word is 'theos', or 'divine' as Weymouth or Darby translates it. This
is not only in harmony with the rules of Greek grammar, is reflective of the actual
Greek text, but also supports the translation 'a god', meaning simply a powerful
divine being. Thus there is ample basis for rendering the text as we do, none, no
not one iota of evidence supporting the underhanded trinitarian translators who have
ignored the Greek text, the rules of Greek grammar and knowingly rendered the
text as if it had the definite article when clearly it does not, simply to support their
religions bias. Shame on them!
Originally posted by galveston75So you believe the context supports two Gods. Or is it God and a god?
The context simply does not support that he is God as well as the rest of the Bible.
What does the context support and how does it support it? Since you
have eliminated God and God, what should it be and why?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't see how you could add "a" here to make it "a god" or "a God".
so there i have what, more self certified opinion based on more emptiness,
reflective of what? nothing more than a religious bias that has ignored and
continues to ignore the Greek structure of the ancient text, no way, your not getting
away with it.
The second instance of 'theos', is a predictive noun preceding both the the subject
and ...[text shortened]... when clearly it does not, simply to support their
religions bias. Shame on them!
However, "devine" or better "diety" seem possible, but "theos" is
usually translated "God" or 'god" with "god" referring to a false or
pagan god.