oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
The above statement is plenty dishonest for a scholar. I did my own research in finding the same greek structures and it is clear that, depending on the context, you can interpret the anarthous as indefinite. Of course, I am not saying as the Watchtower that we must translate it as "a god", but it is not grammatically incorrect.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
I can defend the translation "The Word was God" in the same way as I can defend that of the NWT. This was a great debate in the early church. This is why educated Christians like Tertullian needed to use philosophical terms to avoid Sabelianism in regarding "theos" as definite. He used the latin word "substantia" (being of essence) to do an exegesis to explain how the Son and the Father are the same God.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
Who translates it "a god" besides the WT and Johannes Greber?
No modern translation does it. However, it is not grammatically incorrect. I am not defending this translation as the true one, because no one currently knows the mind of the writer. However, as Origen noticed, many greek readers were confused, because some thought that there were two Gods or only one God in John 1:1.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
It was all in his effort to convince me that the New World Translation is superior.
Honestly, in some verses the NWT is superior, but in others it is dishonest. The English of the Old Testament of the NWT sometimes is horrible. However, there no such a thing as a superior translation. All are biased.
oh how dubs will cling to da troof.
this guy was trying to get me to agree that theos and theon were different words for god.
i tried explaining that other languages have grammatical cases and the difference between calling god theos and theon was like the difference between referring to god as he(the subjective case) and him(the objective case.
richard dawkins has said frequently if we don't agree with religious or spiritual people we need to "insult them!
" tell their their out of their "fucking gourds!
" and make sure you really show them how stupid they are for believing in something they can't prove!".
Dawkins: "and make sure you really show them how stupid they are for believing in something they can't prove!"
I disagree with it. Peter Higgs believed in his theory for some decades, then CERN confirmed it. In Physics, you can't prove something unless you show it by an experiment. I think Dawkins is exaggerating his position, although he is essentially right when he criticizes religions.
i know that in english there are better pages exposing the organization, but here i updated the page (in spanish) with an article untitled "la organizacion jehovista oculta el abuso sexual" (the jehovist organization hides sexual abuse) based on the last news on "child abuse" in australia, and quoting watchtower's articles in which you can note how in this organization, the penitent pedophiles are in better position than the "apostates" who denounce the organization's absurdities .. http://jehovismo.com/.
for instance, i quoted the watchtower 1997 jan 1 p.29, where it is said that it is permitted for the penitent pedophile to preach door to door:.
if he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the theocratic ministry school (the watchtower, january 1, 1997).
The following are Watchtower's words against apostates:
Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance." (The Watchtower, October 1, 1993)
However, we don't read such strong words against pedophiles in the Organization.
i know that in english there are better pages exposing the organization, but here i updated the page (in spanish) with an article untitled "la organizacion jehovista oculta el abuso sexual" (the jehovist organization hides sexual abuse) based on the last news on "child abuse" in australia, and quoting watchtower's articles in which you can note how in this organization, the penitent pedophiles are in better position than the "apostates" who denounce the organization's absurdities .. http://jehovismo.com/.
for instance, i quoted the watchtower 1997 jan 1 p.29, where it is said that it is permitted for the penitent pedophile to preach door to door:.
if he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the theocratic ministry school (the watchtower, january 1, 1997).
I know that in English there are better pages exposing the organization, but here I updated the page (In Spanish) with an article untitled "La organización jehovista oculta el abuso sexual" (the jehovist organization hides sexual abuse) based on the last news on "Child Abuse" in Australia, and quoting Watchtower's articles in which you can note how in this Organization, the penitent pedophiles are in better position than the "apostates" who denounce the Organization's absurdities .
For instance, I quoted the Watchtower 1997 Jan 1 p.29, where it is said that it is permitted for the penitent pedophile to preach door to door:
If he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make
spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the Theocratic
Ministry
School (The Watchtower, January 1, 1997)
