1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can say I am RJH but I can not truthfully say, I AM.
We do not say it because its simply not correct English, its a nonsense, your translators
once again have demonstrated their dogma in trying to assign a value to the Greek
where none exists. Why do they not translate it according to the sense? because they
wish to assign some value to Jesus where none exists in the text. What Jesus states is translate it correctly?
We all know the answer, bias in translation of trinitarian snakes!
I am not the eternal self existent being so I can not
say, "before Abraham came into being, I AM" as
Yahshua (Jesus) did. Why then did they pick up stones
to stone Him, if they did not connect this with the
name of God in Exodus 3:14?
P.S. Do you see anyway we can compromise on this?
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsyou are and you dont even know why, do you? But dont worry, I'll prove it to you,
I know. But "came to be" refers the Abraham.
It would be translated:
"Before Abraham "came to be", I AM.
P.S. Who is the idiot now, huh?
again! Snakes!
In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb, we
would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time than the action of
the present verb, (John wrote the book that I am reading. 'Wrote', happened before
'am reading'.) This is true in most cases in Greek as well as English. But in John
8:58, this is not the case, and we know its not the case because the preposition
'prin', 'before', coordinates the relationship between the two actions represented by
the verbs. This preposition tells us that the action of the verb in the present tense
'am', happened (or began to happen or was already happening) 'before', the action of
the verb in the past tense (came to be)
Professor Jason David Bedhun, Truth in translation, accuracy and bias in English
translations of the New Testament, page 105
Once again an examination of the sacred text has undone all your efforts to impose
your dogma upon scripture, for its clear that you have misrepresented the actual
text and i want a public apology for the way you snakes have slanderously
misaligned the translators of the New World Translation. We have not sought to
mislead anyone, we have strictly followed the Greek and English grammatical
construct. You have tried to mislead and impose your dogmatic bias upon the text
with a mere lexical rendition which is not even proper English never mind a proper
translation. So you will apologise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePride is also a sin, Robbie.
you are and you dont even know why, do you? But dont worry, I'll prove it to you,
again! Snakes!
In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb, we
would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time than the action of
the present verb, (John wrote the book that I am reading. 'Wrote', happened before ...[text shortened]... not even proper English never mind a proper
translation. So you will apologise.
Stop looking at the words and feel what the words say. Ask God for understanding. Cutting off what RJH says with "forget you, I KNOW better", is also pride.
You can line up experts until the cows come home, and others can find experts who espouse their opinion.
We KNOW the Bible is insufficient in parts, due mainly to the meddling of man. This includes not only the Council of Nicea, but also the thousands upon thousands of translators since then as well. True Christians (I seem to recall you believing you fall in this category) endeavor to understand the feeling of the Bible as well as the words.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn order to give you the benefit of the doubt since we are not experts
you are and you dont even know why, do you? But dont worry, I'll prove it to you,
again! Snakes!
In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb, we
would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time than the action of
the present verb, (John wrote the book that I am reading. 'Wrote', happened before not even proper English never mind a proper
translation. So you will apologise.
in Biblical Greek, I looked up the two greek words in John 8:58 that
we are in dispute about. That is, ego eimi.
I first used Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by
Joseph H. Thayer to look up both Greek words. Below is the result:
ego - personal pronoun, I.
(The nominative "ego" when joined to a verb, generally has force and
emphasis, or indicate antithesis.)
eimi - has the force of a predicate [i.e. is the substantive verb];
to be, i.e. to exist.
Then I used The Analytical Lexicon To The Greek New Testament by
William D. Mounce. Below is the result:
ego - I, nominative, singular
eimi - to be, to exist; present, active, indicative, 1st person, singular
a simple linking verb ( "copula" ) to the subject and predicate, and
therefore in itself affecting the force of the sentence by its tense,
mood, etc.
Now to understand what is meant by (Present, Active, Indicative).
http://www.theology.edu/greek/gk03.htm
That is, the tense is present (describing action taking place now), the
voice is active (meaning that the verb's subject is acting and not being
acted upon), and the mood is indicative (which demonstrates true reality).
Present, Active, Indicative verbs are translated by a present tense
English verb.
This means "ego eimi" translated to "I am" and not "I have been" as the
JW's wish to do. "I have been" would require a perfect indefinte tense
and there is no such thing in Greek grammer.
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Lol, he knows what he is doing. He has a safety net in the JW's to back out to if he gets in trouble with his posts. I'm sure he is more than capable of handling himself in this kitchen 🙂
Well that's just silliness if RC does that!! However if it's too hot in the kitchen the RC should not be in a forum were people might not agree with or even challenge Him
Manny
As for whether his points are true or not matters not as much as how convincing they can sound - whether alligning himself with some science (or lack there of), or just dismissing/debasing others arguement out of hand. (Tha baby is often thrown out with the bath water).
The more intrusive/true your statement against his belief system, the more flippant and dismisive are his posts. (Robbie Carrobies law🙂 )
Go Rob, counter ..
Originally posted by karoly aczelI see "The law of RC" 🙂
Lol, he knows what he is doing. He has a safety net in the JW's to back out to if he gets in trouble with his posts. I'm sure he is more than capable of handling himself in this kitchen 🙂
As for whether his points are true or not matters not as much as how convincing they can sound - whether alligning himself with some science (or lack there of), o ...[text shortened]... the more flippant and dismisive are his posts. (Robbie Carrobies law🙂 )
Go Rob, counter ..
Manny
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAs i suspected, you have actually no idea what you are talking about. I will repeat
In order to give you the benefit of the doubt since we are not experts
in Biblical Greek, I looked up the two greek words in John 8:58 that
we are in dispute about. That is, ego eimi.
I first used Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by
Joseph H. Thayer to look up both Greek words. Below is the result:
ego - personal pronoun, I.
( d require a perfect indefinte tense
and there is no such thing in Greek grammer.
the quotation as you seemed to have either misunderstood it or chosen to ignore it,
In most sentences where we see a past tense verb and a present tense verb, we
would assume that the action of the past verb is earlier in time than the action of
the present verb, (John wrote the book that I am reading. 'Wrote', happened before
'am reading'.) This is true in most cases in Greek as well as English. But in John
8:58, this is not the case, and we know its not the case because the preposition
'prin', 'before', coordinates the relationship between the two actions represented by
the verbs. This preposition tells us that the action of the verb in the present tense
'am', happened (or began to happen or was already happening) 'before', the action of
the verb in the past tense (came to be)
Professor Jason David Bedhun, Truth in translation, accuracy and bias in English
translations of the New Testament, page 105
i want you to understand that taking a single clause out of context and trying to
apply a lexical meaning to support your dogma is not translation. It has been
proven,
1. to state that, ' before Abraham was, i am', is ungrammatical and is not a proper
translation at all, but a lexical rendering of a verb in isolation, which makes no
sense in the context.
2. The preposition 'prin', makes it clear that the verb in the present tense (am),
happened before the verb in the past tense (came to be) and should be translated
according to the actual sense of the Greek idiom.
No such thing in Greek Grammar???? how would you know? you cannot read Greek!
and yet profess to be an expert on the matter? well lets compare your expert
opinion with Professor BeDuhn , shall we, and we shall determine the accuracy of
your statement.
A quick glance at Smyths Greek grammar reveals that what we are dealing with in
John 8:48 is a well known Greek idiom. The pertinent entry is section 1885
on verb tenses, which states, 'the present. when accompanied by a definite or
indefinite expression of past time, is used to express an action begun in the past
and continued in the present. The 'progressive perfect', is often used in translation.
Thus . . . . 'I have been long (and am still) wondering' . I think you can see
immediately that this entry applies to John 8:58, where the present verb . 'eimi', is
accompanied by an expression of the past tense, 'prin Abraam genesthai'.
Professor Jason David Bedhun, Truth in translation, accuracy and bias in English
translations of the New Testament, page 106
lets do a comparison, RJH, who knows nothing about Greek grammar and Professor
BeDuhn who lectures in it. RJH, and I quote, 'there is no such thing in Greek
grammar (spelling mistake corrected)', Professor BeDhun, 'a well known Greek
idiom'.
Once again RJH it has been demonstrated that in order for you to support your
dogma you must, ignore the Greek idiom, ignore English proper English grammar,
ignore the sense of the text and try to dishonestly assert that a lexical (word for
word) translation is appropriate, although in other instances we know that your
translators are familiar with the Greek idiom, they just choose to ignore it on this
instance because of their prejudice. Hey we have not even got started on the
Hebrew yet and already the wheels are falling of your wagon.
So if you apologise, like I know your gonna, we'll be on our way.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsyou dont know what you are talking about, you cannot read Greek and continually
He apparently says he is not interested in our dogma and is only interest
in what the Greek text says because he is not used to anyone knowing
anything about it and they want be able to come back. That is why when
I did, he claimed I did not know what I was talking about.
make the most ill informed of assertions, as the above clearly demonstrates. I am not
interested in your dogma because its not supported by scripture, not because i am
afraid of anyone knowing anything about it. In fact, i welcomed anyone , of any
persuasion to offer a comment, did i not? I appealed to avalanche, googlefudge,
wolfie??? did I not? then why are you trying to portray the opposite?
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneNot quite Suzzianne, its not a matter of pride, its a fight against ignorance and a fight
Pride is also a sin, Robbie.
Stop looking at the words and [b]feel what the words say. Ask God for understanding. Cutting off what RJH says with "forget you, I KNOW better", is also pride.
You can line up experts until the cows come home, and others can find experts who espouse their opinion.
We KNOW the Bible is insufficient in parts, ...[text shortened]... u fall in this category) endeavor to understand the feeling of the Bible as well as the words.[/b]
against prejudice, their dogma and their prejudices. Ignorance can be forgiven, we
cannot possibly know everything, but to slanderously portray others as being errant
when in fact they are not, is inexcusable. All RJH has to state is 'yes, we have done so
because of our religious bias', and I would be fine with that, but he cannot, because he
has not the integrity to do so. All he has to state is, yes, the New world translation is
the most accurate in this instance (i do not claim that we are unbiased) and all
would be well, but noooo, he cannot bring himself to do it, so i must prove again and
again and again, what a thoroughly scurrilous fellow he is.