Log in to check your private messages 
Username: Password:   
  Reformed Theology Institute
  RTI, founded July 2008, is a venue for Reformed theology, education, training, and discussion.
Index  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  Profile Scroll to Bottom  RTI Portal New Posts Since Last Visit
Recent Posts    
    Join! (free)   
 

Log in
   Username:
   Password:
   Log me on automatically each visit
  
Welcome
Guest

IP Address: 54.80.10.30


Useful Resources

RTI Main Menu
Home Page
Forums
How-To FAQs
Membership Central
Photo/Doc Gallery
Private Messages
Smilies
Bible Encyclopedia
Bible Tool

RTI Announcements
Crowdfunding for RTI Web Site Server Administrators
TNARS Degree Study Discussion Forums Closed
Help RTI Grow
Hotmail Email Domain No Longer Supported for Members
Adopt a Smiley $$ Campaign
Welcome New Members!
RTI Standards of Conduct
Before You Post: Review The SoF and Rules of Conduct
RTI Statement of Faith
About RTI

RTI Latest Topics
RTI RTOW: Who has had the greatest impact on my life?
Heaven, the firmament and the waters

RTI Popular Topics
How to refute Landmark Baptists?
Preferences On NA28 or UBS 5th editions
Should we base theology on end of Mark's Gospel?
Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research
The New Jerusalem and Righteousness
2 Peter 3:9 and word "all"
What book is good for those new to the faith?
Indwelling versus Infilling of the Holy Spirit
What is difference perservation of saints/eternal security?
Puritan Reformed Ministries in India



 
Jump to:  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reformed Theology Institute Forum Index » Biblical Languages » Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research
Author Message

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-17-2016 7:44 am
Post Number: 25681
 Reply with quote

Should Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research be something that I should add to my Logos software library? As this might be something I can use when I get further ahead in learning the Greek?

Are there any here that have this and use it?

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 2:06 am
Post Number: 25698
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
Should Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research be something that I should add to my Logos software library? As this might be something I can use when I get further ahead in learning the Greek?

Are there any here that have this and use it?


How can anyone be expected to answer that question without knowing at what level your Greek is and what you want to use it for. With all due respect brother in all our discussions (and there have been many) there isn't much evidence of interaction with Scripture at all. I don't mean to be insulting, but at the same time I can't recommend Greek resources to you until I see evidence of a proficiency in using the text of Scripture to formulate and defend your positions  Think
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 8:18 am
Post Number: 25708
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
Should Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research be something that I should add to my Logos software library? As this might be something I can use when I get further ahead in learning the Greek?

Are there any here that have this and use it?


How can anyone be expected to answer that question without knowing at what level your Greek is and what you want to use it for. With all due respect brother in all our discussions (and there have been many) there isn't much evidence of interaction with Scripture at all. I don't mean to be insulting, but at the same time I can't recommend Greek resources to you until I see evidence of a proficiency in using the text of Scripture to formulate and defend your positions  Think


Decided to get it fir use, and would say that much of it is beyond my current level of understanding, but there are areas where it has helped me to understand certain passages in Bible in a better fashion now then before.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Ask Mr. Religion


Admin



Joined: 28 Jul 2008
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 4770
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 211
Rep Hits: 44

Location: Chandler, AZ
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 9:19 am
Post Number: 25711
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
Should Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research be something that I should add to my Logos software library? As this might be something I can use when I get further ahead in learning the Greek?

Are there any here that have this and use it?


How can anyone be expected to answer that question without knowing at what level your Greek is and what you want to use it for. With all due respect brother in all our discussions (and there have been many) there isn't much evidence of interaction with Scripture at all. I don't mean to be insulting, but at the same time I can't recommend Greek resources to you until I see evidence of a proficiency in using the text of Scripture to formulate and defend your positions  Think


Decided to get it fir use, and would say that much of it is beyond my current level of understanding, but there are areas where it has helped me to understand certain passages in Bible in a better fashion now then before.


I am confused. You begin by asking...

"Should Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research be something that I (DWf1) should add to my Logos software library?"

After a response to your question, you reply that you...

"Decided to get it for use..."

And, in fact, after getting it you noted

"it has helped me to understand certain passages..."

My confusion lies in the fact that you apparently have already obtained the item before asking your question about obtaining the item --OR-- that in the time between asking about the item and now you obtained the item and it is already clearing up confusion you have.

What are the actual facts here?
_________________
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Arizona Arizona, it's a dry heat!

Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog


View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user Visit poster's website

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 12:17 pm
Post Number: 25715
Reply with quote

[Downloaded it from Logos in between time...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Ask Mr. Religion


Admin



Joined: 28 Jul 2008
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 4770
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 211
Rep Hits: 44

Location: Chandler, AZ
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 12:44 pm
Post Number: 25721
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
[Downloaded it from Logos in between time...


So what exactly, after downloading it, did the book aid you in "understanding certain passages" you were experiencing?
_________________
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Arizona Arizona, it's a dry heat!

Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog


View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user Visit poster's website

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 7:31 am
Post Number: 25734
Reply with quote

Ask Mr. Religion wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
[Downloaded it from Logos in between time...


So what exactly, after downloading it, did the book aid you in "understanding certain passages" you were experiencing?


So far, been reading the section on the Greek article and its use in the scriptures, and that has been infomative to me, as read through it and better understand whyy theJW for example cannot use the lack of the article in John 1 before word Greek to show that Jesus was inferior and a created being.... For If the definite article "the" was used before word, that would mean that Jesus is same as God the father!

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Ask Mr. Religion


Admin



Joined: 28 Jul 2008
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 4770
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 211
Rep Hits: 44

Location: Chandler, AZ
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 10:23 am
Post Number: 25736
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
Ask Mr. Religion wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
[Downloaded it from Logos in between time...


So what exactly, after downloading it, did the book aid you in "understanding certain passages" you were experiencing?


So far, been reading the section on the Greek article and its use in the scriptures, and that has been infomative to me, as read through it and better understand whyy theJW for example cannot use the lack of the article in John 1 before word Greek to show that Jesus was inferior and a created being....For If the definite article "the" was used before word, that would mean that Jesus is same as God the father!


For the New World Translation of John 1:1), the JW relies heavily upon James Moffatt’s A New Translation of the Bible, which renders Theos as "divine".

Moffat writes:

    The reason for their rendering the Greek word theos as “divine,” and not “God,” is that it is the Greek noun theos without the definite article, hence an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word or Logos was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, theos, preceded by the definite article ho, hence an articular theos. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone.


From the above we see that the NWT derives a translation principle which may be stated as follows: anarthrous theos equals “a god”; arthrous theos equals “God.” The anarthrous is qualitative; the arthrous is quantitative. Obviously an incidental criticism at this point is necessary. The NWT has “a god,” which is clearly a quantitative rendering. The NWT translators, to be consistent with their principle, should have followed Moffatt, which reads "divine".

The NWT appendix on the topic several times uses the phrase “the definite article” so as to imply that in Greek there exists in correspondence to English an “indefinite article.” Such phraseology implies lack of understanding of this aspect of the Greek language, for there is no such parallel correspondence to English usage.

In fact, throughout the 1,300 occurrences of theos in the New Testament, the arthrous theos far exceeds the anarthrous, and of 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos the NWT has sixteen times either “a god, god, gods, or godly.” Therefore the NWT translators were only 6% faithful to their canons enunciated in the NWT appendix to John 1:1.

The first paragraph of John, 1:1-18, furnishes a lucid example of NWT’s arbitrary dogmatism. The Greek word for “God” occurs eight times, in verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18, and has the article but two times, verses 1 and 2. Yet NWT reads “God” six times. Of these, four are anarthrous and two arthrous. And in John 1:18 the NWT reads “the .. .god” where there is no article in Greek. Such examples can be adduced in great abundance throughout NWT. The plain fact is that they are playing fast and loose with the translation to read in their own preconceptions.

The NWT shows ignorance of a particular nuance of the Greek language. The “Foreword” of the NWT disclaims any prejudice or bias for it’s translation. All other translations are written off as having been influenced by “religious traditions, hoary with age." Yet the NWT translators have established a principle regarding the Greek article to which they themselves have been unfaithful 94% of the time; and the “preferred religious view” of an Arian-type cult has influenced the rendering of a very important passage.

The issue with John 1:1 can be resolved by careful exegesis as follows (as adopted from here):

A literal translation of John 1:1 reads thus:  "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word."  

Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation.  It is not saying that "a god was the word." That would not make sense.

So let's break John 1:1 down into three parts:

1. "In beginning was the word..."  (en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

2. "and the word was with the God..." (kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.

3. "and God was the word." —Properly translated as "and the Word was God." (kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.

Regarding John 1:1, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word." But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god".

Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3 shown above. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

In John 20:28 we read, "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me."

If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then should not Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.

John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciple swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God—even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).

See also: Chapman, B. (1994).  Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.).  Quakertown, PA:  Stylus Publishing. Also,  Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.
_________________
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Arizona Arizona, it's a dry heat!

Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog


View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user Visit poster's website

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 12:03 pm
Post Number: 25737
Reply with quote

Ask Mr. Religion wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
Ask Mr. Religion wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
[Downloaded it from Logos in between time...


So what exactly, after downloading it, did the book aid you in "understanding certain passages" you were experiencing?


So far, been reading the section on the Greek article and its use in the scriptures, and that has been infomative to me, as read through it and better understand whyy theJW for example cannot use the lack of the article in John 1 before word Greek to show that Jesus was inferior and a created being....For If the definite article "the" was used before word, that would mean that Jesus is same as God the father!


For the New World Translation of John 1:1), the JW relies heavily upon James Moffatt’s A New Translation of the Bible, which renders Theos as "divine".

Moffat writes:

    The reason for their rendering the Greek word theos as “divine,” and not “God,” is that it is the Greek noun theos without the definite article, hence an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word or Logos was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, theos, preceded by the definite article ho, hence an articular theos. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone.


From the above we see that the NWT derives a translation principle which may be stated as follows: anarthrous theos equals “a god”; arthrous theos equals “God.” The anarthrous is qualitative; the arthrous is quantitative. Obviously an incidental criticism at this point is necessary. The NWT has “a god,” which is clearly a quantitative rendering. The NWT translators, to be consistent with their principle, should have followed Moffatt, which reads "divine".

The NWT appendix on the topic several times uses the phrase “the definite article” so as to imply that in Greek there exists in correspondence to English an “indefinite article.” Such phraseology implies lack of understanding of this aspect of the Greek language, for there is no such parallel correspondence to English usage.

In fact, throughout the 1,300 occurrences of theos in the New Testament, the arthrous theos far exceeds the anarthrous, and of 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos the NWT has sixteen times either “a god, god, gods, or godly.” Therefore the NWT translators were only 6% faithful to their canons enunciated in the NWT appendix to John 1:1.

The first paragraph of John, 1:1-18, furnishes a lucid example of NWT’s arbitrary dogmatism. The Greek word for “God” occurs eight times, in verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18, and has the article but two times, verses 1 and 2. Yet NWT reads “God” six times. Of these, four are anarthrous and two arthrous. And in John 1:18 the NWT reads “the .. .god” where there is no article in Greek. Such examples can be adduced in great abundance throughout NWT. The plain fact is that they are playing fast and loose with the translation to read in their own preconceptions.

The NWT shows ignorance of a particular nuance of the Greek language. The “Foreword” of the NWT disclaims any prejudice or bias for it’s translation. All other translations are written off as having been influenced by “religious traditions, hoary with age." Yet the NWT translators have established a principle regarding the Greek article to which they themselves have been unfaithful 94% of the time; and the “preferred religious view” of an Arian-type cult has influenced the rendering of a very important passage.

The issue with John 1:1 can be resolved by careful exegesis as follows (as adopted from here):

A literal translation of John 1:1 reads thus:  "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word."  

Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation.  It is not saying that "a god was the word." That would not make sense.

So let's break John 1:1 down into three parts:

1. "In beginning was the word..."  (en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

2. "and the word was with the God..." (kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.

3. "and God was the word." —Properly translated as "and the Word was God." (kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.

Regarding John 1:1, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word." But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god".

Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3 shown above. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

In John 20:28 we read, "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me."

If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then should not Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.

John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciple swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God—even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).

See also: Chapman, B. (1994).  Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.).  Quakertown, PA:  Stylus Publishing. Also,  Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.


THAT is why knowing some Greek is helpful, as you sso very well pointed out that John wrote as he did to show Jesus was God, but also that Heand the Father are 2 seperate Persons...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 12:54 pm
Post Number: 25740
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:


THAT is why knowing some Greek is helpful, as you sso very well pointed out that John wrote as he did to show Jesus was God, but also that Heand the Father are 2 seperate Persons...


Which is what the English says quite clearly!

However one needs to more then 'some greek' to argue with a JW on this point!

As for your assertion that the definite article (if used) would mean that the Word is the same as the Father in John 1:1 I am not convinced that is what the book you say you are reading actually says - I would suggest it says that it would mean that the words would be interchangeable (convertible terms). Hence it would mean in English: "the God was the word and the God" now, to be fair, you might be right on the implication people would draw from that (and that might be why John didn't use the article) - but what you claim is not what Robertson suggests :D


The purpose of the article is simply the make the subject plain.

Take for example:

"The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea."[A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 767-768.]
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 1:58 pm
Post Number: 25746
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:


THAT is why knowing some Greek is helpful, as you sso very well pointed out that John wrote as he did to show Jesus was God, but also that Heand the Father are 2 seperate Persons...


Which is what the English says quite clearly!

However one needs to more then 'some greek' to argue with a JW on this point!

As for your assertion that the definite article (if used) would mean that the Word is the same as the Father in John 1:1 I am not convinced that is what the book you say you are reading actually says - I would suggest it says that it would mean that the words would be interchangeable (convertible terms). Hence it would mean in English: "the God was the word and the God" now, to be fair, you might be right on the implication people would draw from that (and that might be why John didn't use the article) - but what you claim is not what Robertson suggests :D


The purpose of the article is simply the make the subject plain.

Take for example:

"The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea."[A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 767-768.]


That makes more sense now....

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

larry joseph pearson


Invested Member



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 169
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 29
Rep Hits: 6

Location: Gadsden,Alabama 35901
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 2:03 pm
Post Number: 25747
Reply with quote

Dr. WhofanI, I have a question regarding your post. Have you been in dialogue with those that espouse the New World Translation Bible or have seen a copy of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott? I was just curious no offense given. The anarthrous construction is one reason ( i  would say unreasonable) that" a god" is used in the theology and NWTB of the Watchtower folk.
AMR nailed it with his rendering of John 1:1.

Lurking On The Sidelines

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Find all posts by user Visit poster's website

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-21-2016 8:54 am
Post Number: 25754
Reply with quote

Just getting ready for them to be coming around, as they seem to target the Holidays, as they deem Christman to be pagan, and want to give to us the "truth"

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-21-2016 10:59 am
Post Number: 25757
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
Just getting ready for them to be coming around, as they seem to target the Holidays, as they deem Christman to be pagan, and want to give to us the "truth"


Don't go to John 1:1 in your 'corrupt' bible - and if you try and argue from the Greek prepare to be tested on that subject. If you want to discuss the deity of Christ use the JWs own translation and use Hebrews 1 and ask them who it is talking about, then refer them back to Psalm 102:25-27 (which is quoted in v10-12) and ask them who that passage is about - they will usually say Jehovah - hey presto you have shown them that their own version of the Bible teaches that Jesus is Jehovah - normally they don't come back after that!
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-21-2016 11:05 am
Post Number: 25758
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
Just getting ready for them to be coming around, as they seem to target the Holidays, as they deem Christman to be pagan, and want to give to us the "truth"


Don't go to John 1:1 in your 'corrupt' bible - and if you try and argue from the Greek prepare to be tested on that subject. If you want to discuss the deity of Christ use the JWs own translation and use Hebrews 1 and ask them who it is talking about, then refer them back to Psalm 102:25-27 (which is quoted in v10-12) and ask them who that passage is about - they will usually say Jehovah - hey presto you have shown them that their own version of the Bible teaches that Jesus is Jehovah - normally they don't back after that!


Will try that on them when they come around next time...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reformed Theology Institute Forum Index » Biblical Languages


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Back to top




Welcome To RTI Guest!



ip-location

free counters

Optional full banner
Archive

RTI Statement of Faith

Sola Scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Solus Christus Soli Deo Gloria

Beza Calvin Knox Luther Melanchthon Tyndale Zwingli





Listen to RefNet

phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by
phpBB © 2001-2012 phpBB Group