Study your Bible to know who God is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i have better things to do than look up youtube references, meanwhile you have yet to answer the following

1.was the associate professor lying when he stated that the NWT is the most accurate
2.was Paul lying when he stated that Jesus gave no consideration to the idea that he was equal with God
3.are you lying when you say that he is equal ...[text shortened]... own language
8.Why does the Sahidic coptic text state 'a god'.

thanks in advance - Robbie

!. Not lying, just not informed.
2. No, you just misunderstand him.
3. No, it's true.
4. I do not know anything about the Coptic Christians so I could only
speculate.
7. I would think they should be able to understand their own language.
8. I do not know. I do not have a coptic Lexicon or any books teaching
ths coptic in English.

Originally posted by jaywill

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see
Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will
mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and
who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And ...[text shortened]... the root and the descendant of David, the bright
morning star.”

Amen. And Amen.

hey break out the tambourines, the born againers are a praising da lord, writhing on
the church floor ans speaking in tongues, filled with da Holy Spirit, Lordy Lordy,


amen to that Josiah!

Originally posted by RJHinds
!. Not lying, just not informed.
2. No, you just misunderstand him.
3. No, it's true.
4. I do not know anything about the Coptic Christians so I could only
speculate.
7. I would think they should be able to understand their own language.
8. I do not know. I do not have a coptic Lexicon or any books teaching
ths coptic in English.

the associate professor was uniformed and you can point out with your superior
knowledge just where he went wrong, even though you cannot read or write Greek,
tell me something, do you know how utterly stupid this kinds of statements sounds? I
doubt it, for if you did, surely you would not utter them in public.

Originally posted by RJHinds
!. Not lying, just not informed.
2. No, you just misunderstand him.
3. No, it's true.
4. I do not know anything about the Coptic Christians so I could only
speculate.
7. I would think they should be able to understand their own language.
8. I do not know. I do not have a coptic Lexicon or any books teaching
ths coptic in English.

After investigating on the web I found the following:

The Sahidic version's decision to go anarthrous in John 1:1 is no proof that the translator was thinking of an indefinite God. As in Greek, the absence of the article denotes, as you already know, a qualitative sense, e..g 'and the Word was divine.' (BTW, I think this is the proper way to understand the Greek.) (Nicholas Perrin to Robert Hommel, May 25, 2007).

So it appears that the coptic is no different from the Koine Greek and then
to translate it "a god" would be just as incorrect as it is in the Greek. So I
still think the best translation would be "the Word was Deity".

Originally posted by RJHinds
After investigating on the web I found the following:

The Sahidic version's decision to go anarthrous in John 1:1 is no proof that the translator was thinking of an indefinite God. As in Greek, the absence of the article denotes, as you already know, a qualitative sense, e..g 'and the Word was divine.' (BTW, I think this is the proper way to understand th it is in the Greek. So I
still think the best translation would be "the Word was Deity".

no you have not stated why it should not be considered indefinite, it does after all have
an indefinite article, All you have done is given someone else's opinion, in fact, that's
all you seem to be capable of doing. Once again Coptic is not Greek. Once again,
English is not Greek.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the associate professor was uniformed and you can point out with your superior
knowledge just where he went wrong, even though you cannot read or write Greek,
tell me something, do you know how utterly stupid this kinds of statements sounds? I
doubt it, for if you did, surely you would not utter them in public.

The problem with the professor is that he is forgetting to use common
sense along with his book learning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have not stated why it should not be considered indefinite, it does after all have
an indefinite article, All you have done is given someone else's opinion, in fact, that's
all you seem to be capable of doing. Once again Coptic is not Greek. Once again,
English is not Greek.

Robbie, after learning a new language and observing the difference between how meaning can be interpreted in one language and how meaning can be interpreted in a different language have you found that language can cause deception?

Is not language The Fruit of The Tree of Knowledge?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The problem with the professor is that he is forgetting to use common
sense along with his book learning.

yeah because lets face it you are in a position to tell him his job. Outstanding.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Robbie, after learning a new language and observing the difference between how meaning can be interpreted in one language and how meaning can be interpreted in a different language have you not found that language can cause deception?

Is not language The Fruit of The Tree of Knowledge?

language is not the problem, after all, meaning is rooted in language, its the
unscrupulous snake trinitarian translators who have taken liberties with the language
to support their religious bias.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have not stated why it should not be considered indefinite, it does after all have
an indefinite article, All you have done is given someone else's opinion, in fact, that's
all you seem to be capable of doing. Once again Coptic is not Greek. Once again,
English is not Greek.

I have a very good idea how the Greek works. It is true I don't
understand how the coptic works at all. So I have to go on the
opinions of others. But by common sense, one language should
not contradict another language. So what he said along with
similiar information on another website leads me to believe he is
probably right or very close to being right and therefore "a god"
is still unproven and is most likely wrong in this case because
John is talking about the true God as Dr. BeDuhn admitted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have a very good idea how the Greek works. It is true I don't
understand how the coptic works at all. So I have to go on the
opinions of others. But by common sense, one language should
not contradict another language. So what he said along with
similiar information on another website leads me to believe he is
probably right or very close to being likely wrong in this case because
John is talking about the true God as Dr. DeBuhn admitted.

in other words, your talking pants, give it up RJH. Associate professor stated nothing of
the sort, in fact, since you have not read his book, i suggest for your own sake, not
least ours, just shut up, you are making a fool of yourself and its pitiful to see.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
language is not the problem, after all, meaning is rooted in language, its the
unscrupulous snake trinitarian translators who have taken liberties with the language
to support their religious bias.

Could they do this without language? Indeed it seems language is not The problem because it is not a living soul but doesn't a living soul with language now have the ability to gain and share knowlege including false knowledge? If language never was how would you know that 60%(made up number to make an example) of women liked six packs? If you didn't know this would you still have the desire to gain a six pack?

Originally posted by tomtom232
Could they do this without language? Indeed it seems language is not The problem because it is not a living soul but doesn't a living soul with language now have the ability to gain and share knowlege including false knowledge? If language never was how would you know that 60%(made up number to make an example) of women liked six packs? If you didn't know this would you still have the desire to gain a six pack?

yes but language is the vehicle for expressing ideas, yes it cumbersome at times, yes
its open to abuse, yes its misunderstood and can be ambiguous, but what else is there?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in other words, your talking pants, give it up RJH. Associate professor stated nothing of
the sort, in fact, since you have not read his book, i suggest for your own sake, not
least ours, just shut up, you are making a fool of yourself and its pitiful to see.

He did say it too. Not in his book but later. I quoted it for
you in an earlier post.

P.S. Here it is again. Notice his reply to Robert Hummel.

FROM A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ROBERT HUMMEL AND JASON BEDUHN ON
JOHN 1:1 AND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION:

ROBERT: I have suggested "The Word was Deity." Dr. BeDuhn agrees that this
is possible, but disagrees with the capital "D." I have offered reasons, in an
earlier post, why I believe the capital letter is warranted - to signify that
the nature pointed to is that of the true God.

JB: I understand this reason, and do not disagree that John meant to associate
the Word with the "true God." I don't think that is at issue......

Originally posted by RJHinds
He did say it too. Not in his book but later. I quoted it for
you in an earlier post.

whatever, i am now passed caring.