Originally posted by robbie carrobie please take your corrupt and erroneous translations with not a single explanatory note out of my thread, they amount to an argumentum ad populum, its true because many believe it to be true or in this instance its true because i can produce a list of erroneous and biased translations. Its a logical fallacy, we are discussing Dr. James Moffats transl ...[text shortened]... en feel free offer an explanation, simply citing other translations is irrelevant and dishonest.
This thread started out with promise; the only dishonesty is coming from you.
Originally posted by sonship At this time I am not going to study that again.
I see you are a [b]polytheist and gravitate towards a polytheistic interpretation of John 1:1. And I see that this is a matter offering similar rationals for dozens and dozens of other passages affirming that Christ is God incarnate.
Only two reputable Greek translations do I really need to have ...[text shortened]... w Translation [/b] and the 1901 American Standard Bible (which your cult USED to use.)[/b]
Robbie has admitted in this forum (several times) that he believes:
Jehovah is almighty god
Jesus is mighty god (from Isaiah)
He has 2 saviours (these two)
One of them is an angel
My inferences from this are:
Therefore he is saved by an angel
This angel is divine and is a god
The saviour is an angel
This is fundamentally why I contend with the JWs on everything. Their religion is NOT Christian, it is some sort of bastardisation of Christianity, angel worship and cultism.
Originally posted by divegeester Robbie has admitted in this forum (several times) that he believes:
Jehovah is almighty god
Jesus is mighty god (from Isaiah)
He has 2 saviours (these two)
One of them is an angel
My inferences from this are:
Therefore he is saved by an angel
This angel is divine and is a god
The saviour is an angel
This is fundamentally why I contend with ...[text shortened]... is NOT Christian, it is some sort of bastardisation of Christianity, angel worship and cultism.
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.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
I was responding to sonship; if you bothered to read you would see what I was referring to.
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.
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?
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!
Ask robbie if he has
2 gods
2 saviours
1 of whom is an angel
Let's get that clear and move onto Greek semantics from there.
Edit: 'straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel' is the phrase that comes to mind.
Originally posted by divegeester http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/moffatt.htm*
*Acknowledgment withheld.
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.
Originally posted by divegeester Ask robbie if he has
2 gods
2 saviours
1 of whom is an angel
Let's get that clear and move onto Greek semantics from there.
Edit: 'straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel' is the phrase that comes to mind.
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.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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.
Camels and gnats robbie.
Fix the house foundation before you replace the grout in the bathroom.
Originally posted by divegeester Camels and gnats robbie.
Fix the house foundation before you replace the grout in the bathroom.
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'.
The Word was divine. .
01 Feb '14 08:46
Back to Top