Study your Bible to know who God is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did make reference to the original language and "Theos" in both
passages is definite and not indefinite, otherwise "He" is not the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". And there is no reason to
think that it refers to some other "indefinite" god.

no what you have done throughout the thread is look for excuses to ignore the Greek
construct. You attempted to negate the rules of Greek grammar by introducing rules
that have nothing to do with Greek. You are trying to establish arguments on the basis
of an English translation rather than what the Greek text actually states. The fact of
the matter is, in the Greek text, theos is indefinite, you were asked to demonstrate
where the definite article can be found and you have produced nothing. You
attempted to substantiate your reason citing translations that have also ignored the
Greek construct. You have been thoroughly found out to have supported a religious
bias, and continue to perpetrate that bias although it has been pointed out to you, with
reference and reason, why that bias exists , to what extent and on what basis, you are
reprehensible for this for it displays at once a lack of objectivity and humility.

Protestants have no claim to their motto, sola scriptura, they have abandoned the
scriptures and superseded it with religious bias and pure dogma and continue, in the
face of all evidence to perpetuate these prejudices.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no what you have done throughout the thread is look for excuses to ignore the Greek
construct. You attempted to negate the rules of Greek grammar by introducing rules
that have nothing to do with Greek. You are trying to establish arguments on the basis
of an English translation rather than what the Greek text actually states. The fact of
t ...[text shortened]... bias and pure dogma and continue, in the
face of all evidence to perpetuate these prejudices.

http://biblos.com/luke/20-38.htm

Notice in the referenced link there are parallel Greek text given and in
four of them the Definte Article is before "Theos", but as I stated before
that is not needed to prove it is definite in this case because "God" refers
back to the definite pronoun "He", which is know from the previous
sentence in the Greek.

P.S. Definite Pronoun: replaces a noun that’s identity has been clearly given.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://biblos.com/luke/20-38.htm

Notice in the referenced link there are parallel Greek text given and in
four of them the Definte Article is before "Theos", but as I stated before
that is not needed to prove it is definite in this case because "God" refers
back to the definite pronoun "He", which is know from the previous
sentence in the Greek.

P.S. Definite Pronoun: replaces a noun that’s identity has been clearly given.

why are you wasting my time? there is no definite article in any of the Greek texts?
The parallel account at Mark was provided to demonstrate this also. The text reads ,
theos de ouk estin nekron,

where is the definite article? I want you to point it out to me from the Greek text,
where is it?

when are you going to understand that your English grammar does not apply to the
Greek text, English is not Greek, for goodness sake, do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Christ said:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

He did not say to get the JWs to interpret for you.

Christ said:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

He did not say to get the JWs to interpret for you.

Rajk999,

You seemed to have made somewhat of a change since I first recall reading your posts over a year ago. Am I mistaken about that or right?

Since you first started posting here has there been something of a transition in your appreciation for the Bible ?

Thanks, if you can discribe any changes you have had since you first began to post to the Spirituality Forum here. Correct me if I am in error.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you wasting my time? there is no definite article in any of the Greek texts?
The parallel account at Mark was provided to demonstrate this also. The text reads ,
theos de ouk estin nekron,

where is the definite article? I want you to point it out to me from the Greek text,
where is it?

when are you going to understand that your ...[text shortened]... to the
Greek text, English is not Greek, for goodness sake, do you understand the difference?

why are you wasting my time? there is no definite article in any of the Greek texts?
The parallel account at Mark was provided to demonstrate this also. The text reads ,
theos de ouk estin nekron,

where is the definite article? I want you to point it out to me from the Greek text,
where is it?

when are you going to understand that your English grammar does not apply to the Greek text, English is not Greek, for goodness sake, do you understand the difference?

You have made a good college try at showing us you have beefed up on some familiarity with New Testamet Greek grammer. But to the many Greek translators who would not go along with you on John 1:1, I think you have no other argument then that they are biased.

I'd like to see you test your new Greek grammer jet engines over on CARM discussion forum - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

http://carm.org/

It would be interesting to see you flex your new Greek grammer muscles over on that forum where I know you would be examined on more technical grounds.

Years ago I was with a group of Christians who hired a professor of Greek to tutor us on reading the New Testament in the original language. I did not well keep up with those lessons to be very fluent. It takes a lot of constant work.

The professor was late Dr. Eugene Van Ness Goethchius of the Episcopal Theological School associated with Harvard, in Cambridge, Mass. He was the author of the text The Language of the New Testament published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

He ryly told the class that he wanted to learn Greek better. So he thought the way to do so was to write a book on it.

Anyway, he was an expert. And though you would probably say he was just biased, he demonstrated that the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1 was very unlikely.

I cannot easily recall the technicalaties now. But the jist of it was that it is unlikely that the writer meant for us to understand that the God with whom the Word WAS was a different God from that which the Word WAS.

" ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" rather than

" ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was [some other, a] God"

I think you will only say that he was enfluenced a prior by his bias. But he was an expert. And while your Watchtower's rendering is not totally impossible, he said it was very unlikely according to typical Greek grammer.

By the way. Even if I AM enfluenced by a prior bias, THAT in and of itself does not PROVE my reading of John 1:1 is incorrect.

An a prior bias CAN be an accurate one. And the fact of the matter is that GOD ... was not real to me at all until the moment I called on the name of Jesus to let Jesus into my life. From the time I receive JESUS by calling on Jesus, God was ONLY a theological or philosophical idea in the mind to me.

In my experience Christ absolutely expressed God in me and to me, and Christ brought the enjoyment of God into my life. This was BEFORE I knew anything about grammatical arguments over John 1:1.

And I have shown you that in Romans 8 Paul uses these terms so interchangeably when speaking of the experience of the Christians:

"But you are no in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed THE SPIRIT OF GOD dwells in you, Yet if anyone does not have THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is not of Him. But if CHRIST is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if THE SPIRIT OF THE ONE WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD dwells in you, HE who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."

The Spirit of God in the believers IS
The Spirit of Christ Who is in the believers, who IS
CHRIST in the believers, who IS
THE SPIRIT OF THE ONE WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD in the believers.

The Spirit of God comes into us as CHRIST. So Christ is said to be both at the right hand of God (Rom. 8:34) and simultaneously IN the believers (Rom. 8:10)

Christ is both places because Christ is the Triune God and He can be dispensed INTO the innermost being of the regenerated Christian. No wonder that the Word was with God and the Word WAS God.

Where then is Jesus Christ in Romans 8?

"Christ is in you ..." [the believers, the receivers of Christ] (v.10)

"Christ Jesus ... who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us." (v.34)

You might ask, "What about JEHOVAH His Father?"

The Father is also IN all of the believers in Christ, IN them as Christ and the Spirit of Christ is IN them:

"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:6)

Paul does not mean the Father is in all mankind. He is speaking of "all" in the Body of Christ, the universal church:

"One Body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism;
One God and FATHER of all, who is over all and through all and IN all."

If Jehovah is not in you then you are not a member of the Body of Christ.
And if Jehovah is not in you because you have not received Jesus Christ, then you are as of yet still outside of the brotherhood of Christian brothers who share the divine life of Christ.

You can receive Christ and come into that brotherhood. And again I point out to you that Jesus Christ said that He and His Father, as the Divine "WE" would come into His lovers to make an abode within them. You have to receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart, into your innermost spiritual being by your surrender and invitation:

"Judas, not Isacariot, said to Him, Lord, and what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world ?

Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:22,23)

The "WE" is the Father and the Son. The "WE" is the Spirit of reality Who brings the Son and the Father as CHRIST into the believer.


John 1:12,13. Receive Him to be begotten of God - born of God, given authority to become one of the children of God.

Originally posted by jaywill

Christ said:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

He did not say to get the JWs to interpret for you.

Rajk999,

You seemed to have made somewhat of a change since I first recall reading your posts over a year ago. Am I mistaken abo ...[text shortened]... e had since you first began to post to the Spirituality Forum here. Correct me if I am in error.

Im not sure as these changes if they take place do so very slowly over a long period of time. You might be in a better position to tell me what changes you have noticed.

I would say that I think something is wrong about brethren in Christ arguing over petty matters of doctrine. Both Christ and Paul spoke against that. I know the JWs dont consider the rest of us brethren becuase of their very narrow field of vision but chances are the rest of us do. So I have recently been keeping away from certain topics.

I started a thread about it recently about 'contentious arguing' but not many people commented.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not sure as these changes if they take place do so very slowly over a long period of time. You might be in a better position to tell me what changes you have noticed.

I would say that I think something is wrong about brethren in Christ arguing over petty matters of doctrine. Both Christ and Paul spoke against that. I know the JWs dont consider the rest ...[text shortened]... started a thread about it recently about 'contentious arguing' but not many people commented.

You are right about the destructiveness of contentions.

There are things I can be general about. There are others that I would debate about strongly, as Peter and Paul also would.

Doesn't mean one cannot also love in the Spirit while seeking to defend a or instruct.

And, oh, I could be wrong about some things. James said all the teachers make mistakes.

But I'm not wrong about the sweetness of the resurrected and victorious Lord Jesus. Amen.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] why are you wasting my time? there is no definite article in any of the Greek texts?
The parallel account at Mark was provided to demonstrate this also. The text reads ,
theos de ouk estin nekron,

where is the definite article? I want you to point it out to me from the Greek text,
where is it?

when are you going to understand that your ...[text shortened]... born of God, given authority to become one of the children of God.

I think you have no other argument then that they are biased?

yes you do that, ignore all the reasoning, cite some expert to give his opinion on
your behalf, the fact of the matter remains, that bias in translation can be easily
gauged when one examines the sacred text for oneself. The arguments that i have
made speak for themselves, why? because they are not based on dogma, simply
an examination of the ancient text, nor can they be refuted by some cleverly
contrived technicality, they are pure and simple, readily discernible and easily
understood by those who have an open mind and a lack of prejudice. Perhaps
when you rid yourself of your preconceived ideas with regard to the nature of the
Christ you may also let the scriptures speak for themselves rather than muffling
them before they have had a chance to speak, Sola scriptura was the motto of the
reformation, if you are true to your creed, you will see to it.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im not sure as these changes if they take place do so very slowly over a long period of time. You might be in a better position to tell me what changes you have noticed.

I would say that I think something is wrong about brethren in Christ arguing over petty matters of doctrine. Both Christ and Paul spoke against that. I know the JWs dont consider the rest ...[text shortened]... started a thread about it recently about 'contentious arguing' but not many people commented.

Yes the arguing is not the best way to communicate to others and it's easy to be caught up in.
But I know myself and Robbie are very passionent and protective of the Bible and what God says in it. We are to use it as a "two edged sword" in it's use. Yes love and compassion are to be used as Jesus demonstrated and that is always demonstrated in our door to door taeching work.
But personally when I see ones teaching things incorrectly by some here and when I know it is misleading and can even lead ones away from the truths in the Bible and when the Bible makes it very clear that only by following Bible truths can lead to life, it's something that we get defensive over.
Sorry if our love for the Bible and God comes accross as arguing.....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you wasting my time? there is no definite article in any of the Greek texts?
The parallel account at Mark was provided to demonstrate this also. The text reads ,
theos de ouk estin nekron,

where is the definite article? I want you to point it out to me from the Greek text,
where is it?

when are you going to understand that your ...[text shortened]... to the
Greek text, English is not Greek, for goodness sake, do you understand the difference?

The Greek article "o" is before "Theos" in the following
Greek texts:

1. Greek Orthodox Church
2. Bynzabtine/Majority Text
3. Textus Receptus
4. Stephanu Textus Receptus

These texts are listed just below the reference link you posted to me
as I was pointing out before, but apparently you refuse to look at them.
Here is your link again:

http://biblos.com/luke/20-38.htm

P.S. I am sorry, I meant the parallel text Mark 12:27.
Here is the reference link to the parallel text:

http://biblos.com/mark/12-27.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Greek article "o" is before "Theos" in the following
Greek texts:

1. Greek Orthodox Church
2. Bynzabtine/Majority Text
3. Textus Receptus
4. Stephanu Textus Receptus

These texts are listed just below the reference link you posted to me
as I was pointing out before, but apparently you refuse to look at them.
Here is your link again:

...[text shortened]... 12:27.
Here is the reference link to the parallel text:

http://biblos.com/mark/12-27.htm

The article is also there in the other parallel text in Matthew 22:32

http://biblos.com/matthew/22-32.htm

http://concordances.org/greek/3588.htm

ho, hé, to: the
Original Word: o
Part of Speech: Definite Article
Transliteration: ho, hé, to
Phonetic Spelling: (ho)
Short Definition: the
Definition: the, the definite article.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Greek article "o" is before "Theos" in the following
Greek texts:

1. Greek Orthodox Church
2. Bynzabtine/Majority Text
3. Textus Receptus
4. Stephanu Textus Receptus

These texts are listed just below the reference link you posted to me
as I was pointing out before, but apparently you refuse to look at them.
Here is your link again:

...[text shortened]... 12:27.
Here is the reference link to the parallel text:

http://biblos.com/mark/12-27.htm

why are you wasting my time? i read Luke from the Greek, there is no definite article,
in fact, each verse begins with theos, you can read Greek, cant you? All you are doing
is using alternative translations to substantiate other translations. There are two major
base texts which translators use to establish their texts, Westcott and Hort and Nestle.
If you had any integrity at all you would make references to these base texts, for
they draw on a variety of sources, manuscripts, papyri and codices, but no, in the
most underhanded fashion you continue to try to substantiate your dogma simply by
comparing one translation with another, its now insulting my intelligence. Believe it or
not, i do know what a Greek definite article looks like. Believe it or not, i know that
English and Greek are not the same language. Believe it or not, i know a base text
from a translation. For goodness sake turn up the tone.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why are you wasting my time? i read Luke from the Greek, there is no definite article,
in fact, each verse begins with theos, you can read Greek, cant you? All you are doing
is using alternative translations to substantiate other translations. There are two major
base texts which translators use to establish their texts, Westcott and Hort and N ...[text shortened]... Believe it or not, i know a base text
from a translation. For goodness sake turn up the tone.

But did you check the two parallel texts Mark 12:27 and Matthew 22:32.
It is even clearer in Matthew 22:32 that "Theos" (God) is definite because
the statement about "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is in the same
sentence as "He is not the God of the dead".

http://biblos.com/matthew/22-32.htm

The article is in all texts here even the Westcott and Hort and Nestle text.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But did you check the two parallel texts Mark 12:27 and Matthew 22:32.
It is even clearer in Matthew 22:32 that "Theos" (God) is definite because
the statement about "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is in the same
sentence as "He is not the God of the dead".

http://biblos.com/matthew/22-32.htm

yes there are four texts which include the definite article at Mark, none which
include it the parallel account at Luke, as for those which do, here is a critical
appraisal,

textus stephahanus,

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of
text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical
editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant
text-type or manuscript.


http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

so lets get this, you using texts of the 1500s, with questionable credentials, ignoring
the majority of texts which omit it, even though they are later and draw on a wider
variety of sources I see , thank you very much, i couldn't have done it without you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think you have no other argument then that they are biased?

yes you do that, ignore all the reasoning, cite some expert to give his opinion on
your behalf, the fact of the matter remains, that bias in translation can be easily
gauged when one examines the sacred text for oneself. The arguments that i have
made speak for themselves, why? ...[text shortened]... scriptura was the motto of the
reformation, if you are true to your creed, you will see to it.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm