1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidyour the, come on entertain me, but not with education, i cant handle learning
I wouldn't be surprised if you were an alter-ego of Dasa.
All this crap about everyone else is ignorant.. bashing people as ignorant of your wisdom when they disagree.
It's a real turn-off. Ya know?
😴
something, just spoon feed me pithy banalities and platitudes. Look man, do you have
something to say with regard to the text, that is John 8:58, if not, take it to general or
espouse your opinion to someone that cares. I dont care if your bored, i dont care if
its a turn off, i dont care what you think, i care about discussing the Biblical text,
rationally, reasonably and objectively.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobienot so, i know that when someone asks me, 'what do you do'?, i do not reply, 'before
yeah right, in isolation.
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 the way they do have
ignored basic English grammatical construct.
i was a submarine commander Robbie the chess player, i am.' Did it take a great
understanding of English grammar to know that? No, it is self evident. The
translators of the Greek text in producing the translation in the way they do have
ignored basic English grammatical construct.
Does "I am before I was" make sense? No. You are putting two sentences into one... this changes the correct construct.
I was a submarine commander. Is an independant sentece.
I am before Robbie the chess player. Is also an independant sentence.
You will notice that in the first one "submarine commander" is the object and in the second one "Robbie the chess player" is the object.
Before I was a submarine commander and Robbie the chess player, I am
This is closer to being correct but I am what? I am before I was?
A complete numpty, before i was a submarine commander and Robbie the chess player, I am
Originally posted by sumydidWhat did we learn from all the babble in this thread?
I wouldn't be surprised if you were an alter-ego of Dasa.
All this crap about everyone else is ignorant.. bashing people as ignorant of your wisdom when they disagree.
It's a real turn-off. Ya know?
😴
For one thing, robbie insists that we all become Greek scholars so we can argue about what the Greek means by what it says.
What's wrong with you? There are hundreds of translations all saying essentially the same thing, except for the use of different words and punctuation.(which, incidentally, can change the meaning of the text) But all Greek scholars worth their salt agree that today's translations reflect the meaning and intent of all available manuscripts.
Except the JW's translators, who are not recognised by this worlds most respected Greek and Hebrew scholars as such.
I have a copy of the New World Translation and it is one of the most corrupt translations I've ever read. But I can still prove the identity of the Bibles central character from it.
Originally posted by josephwI don't mind us all delving deep into the Scriptures, in their original texts, and trying to come away with the actual meaning. However, we all are (well, most of us I guess) all laypeople. Hmmm.. maybe I should get my clanleader involved here. He translates Scripture as a matter of profession.
What did we learn from all the babble in this thread?
For one thing, robbie insists that we all become Greek scholars so we can argue about what the Greek means by what it says.
What's wrong with you? There are hundreds of translations all saying essentially the same thing, except for the use of different words and punctuation.(which, incidentally, can ...[text shortened]... I've ever read. But I can still prove the identity of the Bibles central character from it.
In any event, the rational, reasonable discussion among brethren is fine and dandy. It's when someone treats others poorly, results to namecalling, and boasts about his knowledge... that's the stuff that we shouldn't make time for.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232Tell me what it is about the Greek idiom that you fail to understand? They are
[not so, i know that when someone asks me, 'what do you do'?, i do not reply, 'before
i was a submarine commander Robbie the chess player, i am.' Did it take a great
understanding of English grammar to know that? No, it is self evident. The
translators of the Greek text in producing the translation in the way they do have
ignored basic English plete numpty, before i was a submarine commander and Robbie the chess player, I am[/i][/b]
connected with a preposition and are not in isolation, it is therefore idiomatic, a single
grammatical clause peculiar to Greek, not English and must be translated accordingly.
Do you understand?
Originally posted by josephwhow would you know, you cant read Greek and you are therefore in no position to
What did we learn from all the babble in this thread?
For one thing, robbie insists that we all become Greek scholars so we can argue about what the Greek means by what it says.
What's wrong with you? There are hundreds of translations all saying essentially the same thing, except for the use of different words and punctuation.(which, incidentally, c ...[text shortened]... I've ever read. But I can still prove the identity of the Bibles central character from it.
judge anything, all you can in fact do is compare one translation with another, you
have no way of knowing whether all are accurate or none, have you. It doesn't of
course stop you make outrageous claims on the basis of your ignorance though, does
it.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow when I was explaining this all to you before you wanted to ignore
yeah right, in isolation.
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 the way they do have
ignored basic English grammatical construct.
the Enlish. You kept saying this is Greek, not English. Amnesia again,
I think.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust not respectfully, which is obvious.
i dont care what you think, i care about discussing the Biblical text,
rationally, reasonably and objectively.
Since you are an expert in the extrapolation of contextual meanings and apparently spend a great deal of your time in study of written words, surely you gleaned from the forum rules that your behavior is out of bounds.
"... you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflammatory remarks that stray beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal."
"Do not make defamatory posts."
"Do not harass other members of the community. Harassment is any unwanted conduct including insults, jokes and any remarks affecting the dignity of another."
While we are all certainly guilty of an offense here or there, your every post is rife with insults towards your opponent. Ceaselessly calling others "ignorant" or "bozo" or other terms meant to paint them as unworthy of you are not as educated as you are inflammatory and insulting.
Why not just tone it down a little bit? Is that too much to ask?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif John 8:58 is a "Present of Past Action Still in Progress", it would focus on Jesus’ existence prior to Abraham’s and
Tell me what it is about the Greek idiom that you fail to understand? They are
connected with a preposition and are not in isolation, it is therefore idiomatic, a single
grammatical clause peculiar to Greek, not English and must be translated accordingly.
Do you understand?
continue all the way up to the point where he is presently speaking. However, this is not all Jesus is saying, for when lined up with the context of the rest of
the verse, this translation does not fit.
In verse 56 when Jesus tells the Jews that Abraham rejoiced to see his day; the obvious response is how can this be since Jesus was not even 50 years of age?
If John 8:58 is a "Present of Past Action Still in Progress", Jesus tells them that he existed prior to Abraham.
If this is all that Jesus is saying, one has difficulty explaining why the Jews then sought to stone him.
What could be so bad about what Jesus said that it caused the leaders to want to kill him?
This reaction happened only two other times, once in John 5:18, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because they believed he was making himself God and again in John 10:31-33 the Jews once again believed Jesus was claming to be God and wanted to stone him. John intends his readers to associate the three excerpts. John 8:58 is following the same pattern.
The Jews believe once again that Jesus is claming deity and desire to stone him.
Originally posted by sumydidi am sorry i did not understand it was a Sunday school picnic, now that your bitchin is
Just not respectfully, which is obvious.
Since you are an expert in the extrapolation of contextual meanings and apparently spend a great deal of your time in study of written words, surely you gleaned from the forum rules that your behavior is out of bounds.
"... you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflamm ...[text shortened]... and insulting.
Why not just tone it down a little bit? Is that too much to ask?
over, do you have anything of RELEVANCE to state?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindswhy is it so hard for you to look at the text objectively for it has been demonstrated on
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Jews were going to stone
Him because He was claiming the name of God "I AM" for Himself?
(Exodus 3:14)
numerous occasions that Christ is not even quoting from Exodus, that the Greek of the
Septuagint does not read I AM, that the Hebrew does not read I AM, that the Greek
text does not support a rendering of I am? that the only reason that it has any
significance at all is because of your preconception as to the nature of the Christ.
Where does the Greek text state that Christ says he is God, it is not there, you are
talking through your bum, again, in fact, you'd be better of painting two eyes on your
bum cheeks and walking around on your hands. Your ignorance in this matter is truly
astounding.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232sorry i am uninterested in your dogma, i thought i made it plain. Tell it to someone that
if John 8:58 is a "Present of Past Action Still in Progress", it would focus on Jesus’ existence prior to Abraham’s and
continue all the way up to the point where he is presently speaking. However, this is not all Jesus is saying, for when lined up with the [b]context of the rest of
the verse, this translation does not fit.
In verse 56 when Jesus te pattern.
The Jews believe once again that Jesus is claming deity and desire to stone him.[/b]
cares. You have no way of knowing why the Jews threatened to throw stones a him,
which they did on numerous occasions, nor can any be derived from the text, the
rendering makes it quite clear that Christ was referring to his pre human existence,
not to any claim that he was God as has been erroneously assumed and on the
flimsiest of grounds.
gene'sqai is an infinitive. It has a wide range of meaning such as become, origin, created, happened, etc.
The subject of an infinitive will be in the accusative case; in this sentence
the subject is Abraham.
So what we have is a little noun phrase, which comes out to "Abraham’s coming forth" or "Abraham’s birth." pri.n therefore is governing this noun phrase, and Abraham’s coming forth is the object of pri.n so we get “before Abraham’s
coming forth."
Whenever pri.n or pro. plus an infinitive, the action of the infinitive occurs
after the action of the controlling verb, meaning that before the birth of Abraham, something happened.
This prepositional phrase pri.n VAbraa.m gene'sqai is modifying the main verb eivmi'Å adverbially telling the reader when something happened. "I AM before Abraham’s coming forth", or "I AM before the birth of Abraham." Namely, I existed prior to Abraham.