The Word was divine. .

-Removed-

This thread is about James Moffat translation of John 1:1, if you want to start ranting about irrelevancies then get out of the thread and start your own, this is for serious students of scripture not Daily Mail readers.

-Removed-

James Moffat, the word is divine, why?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were not asked what Moffat believed or did not believe, what you were actually asked was why he translated his text as 'the Word was divine".

What are the facts?

Essentially there are two usages of theos. An anarthrous theos and an articular theos. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an id ...[text shortened]... ', and its therefore important that a translation reflect the truthfulness of the original text.

Unless you have amnesia again, you should know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit represents one God in three persons. The first person is God the Father, the second person is God the Son, and the third person is God the Holy Spirit. One very complex God. Too complex for man to understand.

Why do you think God said. "Let US create man in OUR image." ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Unless you have amnesia again, you should know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit represents one God in three persons. The first person is God the Father, the second person is God the Son, and the third person is God the Holy Spirit. One very complex God. Too complex for man to understand.

I am uninterested in your rantings. I am interested in accurate translation of the Bible, I repeat, James Moffat, 'the Word is divine', why?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This thread is about James Moffat... If you have not the common decency to respect the threads direction can I suggest that you start your own thread on whatever topic interests you .... without tedious references to irrelevancy.

I'm sorry, but I'm with Suzi on this one.

Threads are not water-tight compartments where the same poster can contradict himself and, when cornered, just start a new thread. There is such a thing as honest consistency, where you may be taken to task for what you said, or didn't say, in another thread, as long as there is a measure of connection, as there is in this case.

Makes sense to me!

Originally posted by CalJust
I'm sorry, but I'm with Suzi on this one.

Threads are not water-tight compartments where the same poster can contradict himself and, when cornered, just start a new thread. There is such a thing as honest consistency, where you may be taken to task for what you said, or didn't say, in another thread, as long as there is a measure of connection, as there is in this case.

Makes sense to me!

I have lost count of the number of times these posters need to be reeled in, they continually post irrelevancy, its as if they are almost incapable of addressing or even relating their comments to the threads theme. Its tedious to constantly remind them of why the thread was started. Dare i say it, but your own text does not address the theme either, how hard can it be?

-Removed-

sorry i can see no reason why he translated the text as he does, perhaps you can enlighten us, you have after all only been asked numerous times, if you don't know, just say so.

-Removed-

this thread is about James Moffats translation of John 1:1, your attempts to introduce irrelevancy is not only bad manners, its tedious, start your own thread if you are interested in the respective subjects and let those of us who can and are willing discuss accurate Bible translation do so in peace.

-Removed-

more irrelevancy and unworthy of serious comment

James Moffat - 'the Word is divine', anyone that knows anything about the Bible willing to proffer an opinion that is actually related to the threads theme? I repeat, James Moffats translation of John 1:1, 'the word is divine'.