Hi Actor Man! I hope your day’s going better than expected!
I want you to know that I am on your side! I am not a “Trinitarian“ and I’m in agreement with you on what our Lord Jesus said that he depended on his Father.
If one is to read and believe the Bible, it should be read in its most basic form i.e., the copies of the original manuscripts. Why? Because one will then have, first hand, what can be read in its most “virgin state“ possible, without man‘s (religion) influential thoughts & beliefs. Love!
Actor Man, I wish to reiterate & ask you what you think of the passage in the New World Translation (NWT) Colossians 2;9"because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” Love!
Here it is in the Greek Bible. Colossians 2:9 "?τι ?ν α?τ? κατοικε? π?ν τ? πλ?ρωμα τ?ς θε?τητος σωματικ?ς,".
The above verse is taken from "Greek Wescott-Hort NT UTF8" This is the Greek New Testament from Wescott-Hort.
The scholars of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization used this Greek Bible "Wescott-Hort NT", (among others) to translate and make the NWT Bible. Love!
θε?τητος
Case G
Number S
Gender F
The base form of the word θε?τητος is θε?τ. "θε?τ translates to deity, which differs from θει?τ, which translates to divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute;...". Taken from "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament" By Joseph H Thayer.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have been, for many years, using this Lexicon from Thayer in their studies! Love!
What Mr. Thayer wrote is that the word here should be "deity" and not "divine quality" as is used in the NWT.
This passage should therefore (by definition of θε?τητος) read …the fullness of the Deity bodily. Love! Here, “...θε?τητος σωματικ?ς” translates to …Deity bodily.
Actor Man, Christianity is a life not a Bible! Let us ponder on that & the Lord God Jehovah give us understanding.
For it’s the Spirit that gives Life, not the Bible. The Bible talks about what Jehovah did & is doing through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Spirit of Life does today what the Bible says it will do today. The Spirit can influence us to live the Bible without reading it! And once we’re living by the Spirit, we can find what we’re living is found in the Bible.
Please let me know what you think.
Grace & Peace to you.
John
1:26 AM
What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)
These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”.
Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*
Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)
Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.
True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.
The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.
Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.
It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.
On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.
In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.
Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any.
posted by Memra at 9:02 AM on May 10, 2007
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>This blog does not allow anonymous comments.
Google Account
Username | |
Password | |
No Google Account? Sign here. | |
Publish Your Comment Preview </form>