Harlot and the Wild Beast?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh - yes the grammatical counter arguments exist, so what? are we to pretend that they don't? secondly i do not need to be an expert in Coptic to read what others have written in English do I? and thirdly the Coptic text, as far as i can discern, is of interest because it does includes the indefinite article preserving ancient traditions of interp cannot be rendered as "the god" or as the personal name "God."

don't you think?

So while the Coptic indefinite noun in John 1:1c can be properly rendered into English by "divine," "godly," or more literally as "a god," what is certain is that it cannot be rendered as "the god" or as the personal name "God."

Well, if Bosse de Nage's citation is authoritative, then no. This part is particularly relevant:

We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:

Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in place of [a] grace.

Perhaps it is wrong to speak of 'definite' and 'indefinite' as if these terms are the same across all languages. As I said earlier, Ancient Greek uses its definite article in places where English would not (such as with proper nouns, where in Attic Greek one might say 'the Athens' and 'the Rome'.) Coptic may well have its own peculiarities. Certainly in English, the indefinite article implies a class membership. When we say 'this is a rabbit', we imply a number of rabbits and that we are referring to one in particular. In Coptic, this may not be a valid inference from the indefinite article. The article might be equivalent to the Latin 'quodam' ('some'😉 or the Italian 'uno' ('one'😉 which would imply indefiniteness but would not imply the existence of more than one.

The term 'indefinite article' is also very traditional and conservative. I think that linguists prefer to talk about a more general class of words called 'determinatives'. A determinative can specify the number ('many' versus 'few' ) or the relative proximity ('this' versus 'that'😉 or the definiteness ('the' versus 'a'😉. They share the trait that they do not describe something but specify or bound it. But in any language, the so-called 'article' may serve any number of these functions simultaneously so that they do not translate exactly into another language. For example, English speakers often use the determinative 'much' to refer to something countless (as in 'I have much bread'😉 but use 'many' for the opposite intention (compare with 'I have many breads'😉. Latin does not observe this distinction between count and non-count so it would not be likely to translate at all to a Roman.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So while the Coptic indefinite noun in John 1:1c can be properly rendered into English by "divine," "godly," or more literally as "a god," what is certain is that it cannot be rendered as "the god" or as the personal name "God."

Well, if Bosse de Nage's citation is authoritative, then no. This part is particularly relevant:

[quote]We may first ...[text shortened]... be likely to translate at all to a Roman.[/b]

i think that one needs to look at the peculiarities of the coptic language, i thought that the text which i quoted above was quite clear, in that while nouns can be indefinite without an indefinite article; they must be indefinite with an indefinite article, is this not the case and if not why not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have a look at this, there is a better site, but i cannot find it at present, please Conrad, let me know what you think, for i do value your opinion.

http://www.bibliacoptica.com/resources/copticnoute.html

I disagree with this part:

'When the apostle John wrote the beginning of his Gospel, he included the Greek definite article before the first occurrence of theos in John 1:1, but not the second. Many recognize this as an important distinction. For example, one grammatical commentary states, "In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant."4 The Coptic translators recognized this "significant" omission by employing the indefinite article in the Coptic translation.'

As I said earlier, the absense of the article is not very telling. It just naturally falls out when the noun is the predicate complement. I also have to disagree that the indefinite article signals indefiniteness. Languages are tricky things and there are so many possible nuances. Quite possible Coptic uses the indefinite in ways English does not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think that one needs to look at the peculiarities of the coptic language, i thought that the text which i quoted above was quite clear, in that while nouns can be indefinite without an indefinite article; they must be indefinite with an indefinite article, is this not the case and if not why not?

According to Bosse de Nage's article, the indefinite article does not necessarily mean indefiniteness. Apparently the indefinite is used with abstract nouns and nouns of substance (I cannot personally verify this. Who knows how the Coptics spoke at that time?) In the above citation, an English speaker however would probably omit those bracked indefinite articles.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree with this part:

'When the apostle John wrote the beginning of his Gospel, he included the Greek definite article before the first occurrence of theos in John 1:1, but not the second. Many recognize this as an important distinction. For example, one grammatical commentary states, "In the first instance the article is used and this makes the re ...[text shortened]... many possible nuances. Quite possible Coptic uses the indefinite in ways English does not.

yes my friend but we are not talking about the absence of the article, we are talking of the distinction that is noteworthy between its use in the first instance in the form of the definite article towards 'the God' and the indefinite article in the latter use of a god, this is not a mere omission, but a clear distinction, is it not? so regardless of whether there are nuances of language or otherwise, can we safely assume that the Coptic writes in the preservation of the translation wanted us to make a distinction between 'the God and 'a god?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes my friend but we are not talking about the absence of the article, we are talking of the distinction that is noteworthy between its use in the first instance in the form of the definite article towards 'the God' and the indefinite article in the latter use of a god, this is not a mere omission, but a clear distinction, is it not? so regardless o ...[text shortened]... preservation of the translation wanted us to make a distinction between 'the God and 'a god?

No. Because the Coptic language may not think of the indefinite article as always meaning indefiniteness. Think of how English speakers can never use the indefinite article with plurals forms (we never say 'a cabbages'😉. Perhaps Coptic also has a quirk in which the indefinite article will accompany abstract concepts (which English speakers would see as definite).

Actually, I think I answered the wrong question. It is true that the Greek uses the definite article with God (ho theos) in one section but not in another (with just theos). The distinction is not that the writers are talking about one God and then another (the God and some other God); the distinction is probably only grammatical. In one, 'God' is the subject (so a Greek would say 'the God) but in the other, 'God' now is the complement of 'logos' (so the Greek omits the article). They refer to the same person but the 'the' is omitted because of the different grammatical functions of 'God' in those two clauses.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. Because the Coptic language may not think of the indefinite article as always meaning indefiniteness. Think of how English speakers can never use the indefinite article with plurals forms (we never say 'a cabbages'😉. Perhaps Coptic also has a quirk in which the indefinite article will accompany abstract concepts (which English speakers would see as defi itted because of the different grammatical functions of 'God' in those two clauses.

umm I am not seeing this, for it appears to me Conrad, that regardless of whether the ancient Coptics meant with the inclusion of the indefinite article to convey indefiniteness or not entirely paramount, for although the argument may be valid, it still does not negate that a clear distinction has been made.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Is it not possible for Christ to be the Son of God and still be the life of God? If a man says my wife is my life or, my wife and I are one. How can you jump from that to say they are the same person. Makes no sense to me.
========================================

With Christ is went way beyond a sim spense His life into man. Jesus the God-man was a part of this conveying God into humanity.[/b]

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Christ is the Son of God.
God is the Father of Christ.

They are not equal but distinct and separate entities.

Originally posted by Rajk999
1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and [b]the head of Christ is God.

Christ is the Son of God.
God is the Father of Christ.

They are not equal but distinct and separate entities.[/b]

we actually agree on something! gulp! stands back in amazement!

They are not equal but distinct and separate entities.[/b]

They are equal in Nature.

Originally posted by daniel58
They are equal in Nature.

what does this mean?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what does this mean?

It means they have the same "Infinite Nature" so to speak they are both God therefore neither One can be higher or lower than the other.

Originally posted by daniel58
It means they have the same "Infinite Nature" so to speak they are both God therefore neither One can be higher or lower than the other.

mm, you will need to illustrate it daniel, for it is still unclear, 'they have the same nature',mmmm, in that both are divine beings, but then so are angels.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mm, you will need to illustrate it daniel, for it is still unclear, 'they have the same nature',mmmm, in that both are divine beings, but then so are angels.

No they are both God one is not any less God than the Other therefore on cannot be lower or higher.

Originally posted by daniel58
No they are both God one is not any less God than the Other therefore on cannot be lower or higher.

but the quotation that Raj gave clearly states that the Christ is subject to God, does it not?