Who are the Jehovah Witness?

[tigger two]

Quote

 

And JohnD also wrote:

“John 1:1 (Greek)

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theo† pros ton logos

† noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns”

 

　　

I wrote:

Quote

“1. Your quote from the Greek is terrible! It should read ‘en arche een ho logos, kai ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos.’ ”

JohnD:

Quote

“Where do you get your grammar rules from? God or man?”

……………………

I get my grammar rules from the same place all Bible translators and Trinitarian scholars do: From numerous widely recognized NT Greek Grammar experts (Trinitarians, by the way) and my double checking them by going to the NT Greek text. You, however, have shown that you get yours from man all right, but it is often incorrect when double checked by going to the actual Greek text.

…………………JohnD:

Quote

 

“You criticize my anglicanized Greek (using English letters for Greek spelling) as terrible for the lack of two letter "e"s... the difference between "en" and "een" (citing man's language, man's spelling, man's grammar).

“Then you accuse me of listening to man.”

 

………………

I see that you left out my answer (see second quote above which I have restored from the original post) to your strange Anglicized Greek and completely incorrect footnote. That does not seem to be an honest approach to discussion.

For example, I didn’t intend the spelling of en or een to be a criticism. I sometimes spell them both that way myself. And, if you had included my response to your Greek, it shows that I did not emphasize that aspect in any way.

But your completely off-base ending of John 1:1c (kai theo pros ton logos) I underlined and put in bold letters! Obviously that was what I was criticizing! It should be, obviously, kai theos een (or en, if you prefer) ho logos.

You (or whatever man you may have gotten this from) have deleted the sigma ending from the nominative theos, added pros in place of een, used the accusative ton definite article with the nominative logos (articles must agree with the case of the noun they modify). - And, yes, we get such rules from scholarly men who have spent a lifetime studying NT Grammar, AND we can easily check to see if they are true by examining the same texts (made by men) used for translations (made by men).

As for JohnD’s two footnotes ( for earlier Phil. quote: † Greek: "morphe theos huparchon" the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God - and the above John 1:1 quote: † noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns” they can easily be proven wrong by merely examining the NT Greek text. This was pointed out for his misuse of (the already erroneous) Sharp’s Rule which he refers to by using the distinctive phrase “noun kai noun.” Yes, some Trinitarians (men) still try to use Sharp’s Rule (many do not), but even if it were true, it simply does not honestly apply to John 1:1 as I have already pointed out in my previous answer.

And I have seen the misuse of hupachon by a few men as meaning “never ceasing to be” at Phil. 2:6 (and only there) because the translators want that meaning to be true, but an honest examination of the scriptural use of this word shows that it is false. For example as I wrote in my original answer to this misuse by certain men: “Here are a few of the instances of huparchon in the NT - Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19.” They clearly do not mean “never ceasing to be.”  You are clearly getting your information from man.  The difference between us is that I check out any 'rules' from the NT Greek text before I support them. 

…………….

JohnD:

Quote

“When actually I pointed out what the Bible says (whether I misspelled one word or not) which you chose to make a production out of and an opportunity to try to impugn me to discredit me rather than the actual point being made by me.”

.......................

I have no wish to impugn or discredit you, John, just your errors. I truly want accuracy in translation! And I did not make a production out of your spelling.

JohnD:

Quote

“And to attempt to discredit the application of the exact same grammar structure in John 20:17 that there is in John 1:1 you go back to citing the grammar of man.

Quote

These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

...................................................

I explained the problem of using John 20:17 already. If you don’t believe the noted scholars who have studied NT grammar for much of their lives, then actually examine the NT text yourself to see if what they say is true. Beyond that, there is no comparison between the “grammar structure” of John 1:1c and John 20:17 as you have said.

John 1:1c uses an anarthrous nominative (of course) predicate noun (theos/god) before its verb.

John 20:17 uses an articular accusative (of course) object noun (ton theon) after the verb followed by a series of anarthrous accusative nouns each connected by kai (“and”). This is a proper example of the inaccurate Sharp’s Rule (noun kai noun) and the rule that when the initial noun in a series of nouns of the same case has the article, the following nouns may or may not have to use the article. (Compare Matt. 22:32 with Mark 12:26)

All NT Grammar is the “grammar of man.” Men spoke and wrote the various ever-changing languages. The inspired scriptures were given in the language man used. We even see different styles in grammar and usage by different scripture writers (men) who were inspired to write using their own style. All translators have used the grammar of man to translate. Nearly all NT Grammars and lexicons were produced by Trinitarian men. To deny this truth is only fooling yourself and spreading ignorance.

“These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

Edited January 24, 2016 by tigger two
add quote

[tigger two]

JohnD wrote:

Quote

If I were to cite scholars, there are plenty who dispute and refute Jehovah's Witness theology and their rewriting of Scriptures.

Well, of course!  A Trinitarian writer will normally defend a Trinitarian translation or interpretation and ignore most others.  This is completely understandable.  That does not necessarily make it the true, intended meaning of the original writer.

As for John 1:1c, I have seen notable Trinitarian scholars admit that John 1:1c may be literally rendered as "And the Word was a god."

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The only reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.  However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.  

And non-sectarian Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

What is amazing is that any Trinitarian scholar would make such an admission for perhaps the best 'proof' scripture available.

Edited January 24, 2016 by tigger two

[Ezra]

4 hours ago, tigger two said:

John 20:17 uses an articular accusative (of course) object noun (ton theon) after the verb followed by a series of anarthrous accusative nouns each connected by kai (“and”). This is a proper example of the inaccurate Sharp’s Rule (noun kai noun) and the rule that when the initial noun in a series of nouns of the same case has the article, the following nouns may or may not have to use the article. (Compare Matt. 22:32 with Mark 12:26)

tigger two,

God does not expect Christians to become grammarians before they understand His Word. It appears that you are an anti-Trinitarian, and grammar won't help you in the least. The Bible is very clear that God has revealed Himself as the triune Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and no amount of gainsaying will change that. Failure to believe this is a very serious matter.

[tigger two]

I am merely looking for honesty in translation of certain verses.  What I personally believe is of no consequence to the accuracy of translation. 

How about addressing the actual literal facts of my comments instead of your own subjective personal beliefs? 

If you don't understand something, please ask for explanation or investigate on your own before commenting in ignorance. 

Remember, Bible translators are translating from NT Greek manuscripts which are not always clearly understood.  In most cases the translator will translate a verse in accord with his own personal beliefs (or the beliefs of those for whom he is translating).  To know the alternate honest translations of those NT Greek manuscript verses takes some time and effort to uncover.

Edited January 24, 2016 by tigger two

[JohnD]

3 hours ago, tigger two said:

I am merely looking for honesty in translation of certain verses.  What I personally believe is of no consequence to the accuracy of translation. 

How about addressing the actual literal facts of my comments instead of your own subjective personal beliefs? 

If you don't understand something, please ask for explanation or investigate on your own before commenting in ignorance. 

Remember, Bible translators are translating from NT Greek manuscripts which are not always clearly understood.  In most cases the translator will translate a verse in accord with his own personal beliefs (or the beliefs of those for whom he is translating).  To know the alternate honest translations of those NT Greek manuscript verses takes some time and effort to uncover.

You are referring to the New World Translation...

As for the true translations of the Bible:

2 Peter 1:20–21 (AV)

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[tigger two]

JohnD wrote:

Quote

You are referring to the New World Translation...

I am referring to all translations.  They all are translated by fallible men. 

For instance, how do all translations render huparchon  (as I asked you, and everyone else, to look up) at Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19?

Huparchon is written ὑπάρχων in NT Greek. So for those who don’t know how to look things up, here’s where you can see that huparchon does not mean “never ceasing to be” as JohnD’s source of information tells us.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/9-48.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/4-19.htm

These show that huparchon is translated literally as “being,” and in various Bibles is rendered as “is,” “was,” “had been” (NASB), etc. And the context shows that it was a temporary thing (not something which was “never ceasing to be”) in all translations. 

Incidentally, John, I don't expect you to apologize for your mistaken accusations, but I would expect you to acknowledge your errors exposed in my previous posts: "the exact same grammar structure in John 20:17 that there is in John 1:1";  "en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theo† pros ton logos  † noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns” ; "† Greek: 'morphe theos huparchon' the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God. "; "These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

Edited January 24, 2016 by tigger two

[simplejeff]

YAHWEH IS PERFECT !  ((There is ONE that is NOT translated))

7 minutes ago, tigger two said:

I am referring to all translations.  They all are translated by fallible men. 

 

 

Acts 2:8 And how do we hear each in our 

own language in which we were born, "

 

[JohnD]

On 1/24/2016 at 4:17 PM, tigger two said:

JohnD wrote:

I am referring to all translations.  They all are translated by fallible men. 

For instance, how do all translations render huparchon  (as I asked you, and everyone else, to look up) at Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19?

Huparchon is written ὑπάρχων in NT Greek. So for those who don’t know how to look things up, here’s where you can see that huparchon does not mean “never ceasing to be” as JohnD’s source of information tells us.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/9-48.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-2.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/4-19.htm

These show that huparchon is translated literally as “being,” and in various Bibles is rendered as “is,” “was,” “had been” (NASB), etc. And the context shows that it was a temporary thing (not something which was “never ceasing to be”) in all translations. 

Incidentally, John, I don't expect you to apologize for your mistaken accusations, but I would expect you to acknowledge your errors exposed in my previous posts: "the exact same grammar structure in John 20:17 that there is in John 1:1";  "en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theo† pros ton logos  † noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns” ; "† Greek: 'morphe theos huparchon' the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God. "; "These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

"huparchon" from the verb "HUPARCHO"......denotes to be, to be in existence, involving an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it."

This word "huparchon" = subsisting, existing was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense participle form which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present. And it is in the active voice meaning that our Lord chose to retain this state of subsistence. The participle form is used here as a statement of truth. It implies much more than just being, it indicates a continuous existence - one which in the context is a continuous existence of Deity, therefore it is an eternal existence. Note that since God is immutable, then having and losing an existence as God is out of the question. Finally, "huparchon" indicates that our Lord existed as God when He became a Man and continued to exist as God while He now also exists as a Man. So here is what this verse is saying: 'Jesus Christ had a continuous state of existence in the form of Almighty God in eternity past before He took on the form of a human body. And He continues to exist as God while He exists as a human being.'

5225 ὑπάρχω [huparcho /hoop·ar·kho/] v. From 5259 and 756; 48 occurrences; AV translates as “be” 42 times, “have” twice, “live” once, “after” once, and not translated twice. 1 to begin below, to make a beginning. 1A to begin. 2 to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand. 3 to be.

5259 ὑπό [hupo /hoop·o/] prep. A primary preposition; 230 occurrences; AV translates as “of” 116 times, “by” 42 times, “under” 48 times, “with” 14 times, “in” once, not translated six times, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 by, under.

756 ἄρχω [archomai /ar·khom·ahee/] v. Middle voice of 757 (through the implication of precedence); 84 occurrences; AV translates as “begin” 83 times, and “rehearse from the beginning” once. 1 to be the first to do (anything), to begin. 2 to be chief, leader, ruler. 3 to begin, make a beginning.

757 ἄρχω [archo /ar·kho/] v. A primary word; Two occurrences; AV translates as “rule over” once, and “reign over” once. 1 to be chief, to lead, to rule.

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).

morphe theos huparchon = being by very nature God from the beginning and continuing after (being found by very nature bond slave in the likeness of humanity)...

Tiger Two, you have been exposed as an antagonist to the beliefs and values held on this forum which are based on the unaltered Bible.

You are not here to discuss but dismember as a ravenous wolf.

 

[tigger two]

Quote

 

5225 ὑπάρχω [huparcho /hoop·ar·kho/] v. From 5259 and 756; 48 occurrences; AV translates as “be” 42 times, “have” twice, “live” once, “after” once, and not translated twice. 1 to begin below, to make a beginning. 1A to begin. 2 to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand. 3 to be.

5259 ὑπό [hupo /hoop·o/] prep. A primary preposition; 230 occurrences; AV translates as “of” 116 times, “by” 42 times, “under” 48 times, “with” 14 times, “in” once, not translated six times, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 by, under.

756 ἄρχω [archomai /ar·khom·ahee/] v. Middle voice of 757 (through the implication of precedence); 84 occurrences; AV translates as “begin” 83 times, and “rehearse from the beginning” once. 1 to be the first to do (anything), to begin. 2 to be chief, leader, ruler. 3 to begin, make a beginning.

757 ἄρχω [archo /ar·kho/] v. A primary word; Two occurrences; AV translates as “rule over” once, and “reign over” once. 1 to be chief, to lead, to rule.

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).  [bolding + underlining added by tigger two]

 

As my previous posts concerning huparchon have shown, it is more closely related with 'beginning' or 'coming to be.'  And if you actually examine the places huparchon is used in the NT Greek scriptures, you will find that it is often referring to a thing or situation which has begun in the recent past and continues for only a brief time (certainly not from all eternity past to all eternity to come).
 

Quote

 

morphe theos huparchon = being by very nature God from the beginning and continuing after (being found by very nature bond slave in the likeness of humanity)...

Tiger Two, you have been exposed as an antagonist to the beliefs and values held on this forum which are based on the unaltered Bible.

You are not here to discuss but dismember as a ravenous wolf.

 

You have not given the source for your quote beginning with "Morphe" above.  Nor the quote beginning: "This word "huparchon" = subsisting, existing was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense participle form which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present...."

They are certainly not from "the unaltered Bible."  By the way, which Bible is the "unaltered Bible"? 

Edited January 28, 2016 by tigger two

[Ezra]

We are still discussing grammar instead of Bible truth.  The JWs are plainly heretical, and their grammarians won't save them.