The Alpha and the Omega

Originally posted by divegeester
Can you explain how the archangel Michael is the alpha and omega and/or the first and the last?

I have not claimed the Michael the arch angel is the Alpha and the Omega, I don't know where you get the idea that I have, perhaps you should read the text first, who knows, you may actually learn something about the Bible and it will certainly prevent you from attempting rather transparent straw man arguments.

If you want to discuss Michael the Arch angel I started a thread specifically for that purpose, this one is about the Alpha and the Omega, look, it says so in the title.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I said Rev. 22:13. You cannot resist muddying up the truth.

And still you refuse to admit that the Bible repeats itself for the purpose of making a concept clear. It was true in Colossians 1:15-18, and it is true here.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13, KJV

It cannot be any more clear. ...[text shortened]... that you see the truth and that you have the discernment to recognize it, before it's too late.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13, KJV

Very good sister. Don't fret about it. This is very helpful.

The Alpha and Omega is the Beginning and the End and the First and the Last.

Praise the Triune God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry my bad I assumed you had a sense of humour.

Why use a different version? two reasons

1. There can be no legitimate claims of bias if more than one translation is utilised.

2. Different translations bring out different flavours and nuances of the original text.

3.A comparison can be made and errors, interpolations and bias can be re ...[text shortened]... s are corrupted, your assertion is therefore a logical fallacy, a so called, straw man argument.

sorry my bad I assumed you had a sense of humour.

I do that is why I said I had a serious question, anyways.

Is the 'a' in the following verse 'adding' or 'taking away' from the scriptures?

NWT
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god

Just wondering what your thoughts on this are?

Thanks Robbie.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

sorry my bad I assumed you had a sense of humour.

I do that is why I said I had a serious question, anyways.

Is the 'a' in the following verse 'adding' or 'taking away' from the scriptures?

NWT
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was [b]a god

Just wondering what your thoughts on this are?

Thanks Robbie.[/b]

Its neither adding nor taking away, its a prerequisite of translation and corresponds to both the English grammatical structure and the Greek idiom as found in the Greek text, which is an anarthrous predicate noun.

For example, in English we say,

'John is a doctor', the predicate noun 'doctor' is preceded by the indefinite article 'a', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'John is doctor.'

Gregory is an actor, the predicate noun, 'actor', is preceded this time by the indefinite article, 'an', for it to make grammatical sense in English, we don't say, 'Gregory is actor.'

The Greek phrase that you refer to in John 1:1 is exactly the same, its an indefinite predicate noun in the Greek text, 'theos en ho logos' and because its an indefinite predicate noun when we translate it into English we are under necessity to indicate that its an indefinite predicate noun by translating it as 'a god', for the grammatical reasons already outlined.

So its neither adding to scripture nor taking away, its simply an accurate translation of the Greek text. Other translators also recognise this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its neither adding nor taking away, its a prerequisite of translation and corresponds to both the English grammatical structure and the Greek idiom as found in the Greek te...[text shortened]...Other translators also recognise this.

Not to beat a dead horse;

It seems to me, that to say 'The Word was God' vs. 'The Word is a God' carries a heavy implication. 'Was' implies singularity where as 'is a' implies more than one. It is my understanding that JW have a real aversion for the Godhead/Trinity, this does not jive; seems like adding to me. Anyways, no worries I was just wondering your thoughts on this, now I know. Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Not to beat a dead horse;

It seems to me, that to say 'The Word was God' vs. 'The Word is a God' carries a heavy implication. 'Was' implies singularity where as 'is a' implies more than one. It is my understanding that JW have a real aversion for the Godhead/Trinity, this does not jive; seems like adding to me. Anyways, no worries I was just wondering your thoughts on this, now I know. Thanks for the reply.

the Greek text does not say, the word was God, in order for it to say the word was God, it would need to say,

ho theos en ho logos, literally 'the God was the word'

but it doesn't,

and no it doesn't imply two Gods, what it actually implies is that the Word is divine or god like. There is not a single scrap of evidence in the Greek text to state that it implies the same personality.

It seems like adding to you because you don't know anything about the original language text simply because you have taken it upon trust, try to learn some basic Greek, its not that difficult and you will find real enjoyment in studying the scriptures in their original languages.

No worries, your sincere questions are welcomed, as you can see, so much time is taken dealing with skulduggery, its refreshing to have a sincere enquirer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Greek text does not say, the word was God, in order for it to say the word was God, it would need to say,

ho theos en ho logos, literally 'the God was the word'

but it doesn't,

and no it doesn't imply two Gods, what it actually implies is that the Word is divine or god like. There is not a single scrap of evidence in the Greek text to ...[text shortened]... see, so much time is taken dealing with skulduggery, its refreshing to have a sincere enquirer.

ho theos en ho logos, literally 'the God was the word'

An online greek study tool that I have used says exactly what you said it must say, please see link.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf

Is there something wrong with that translation? The Greek?

Originally posted by yoctobyte

ho theos en ho logos, literally 'the God was the word'

An online greek study tool that I have used says exactly what you said it must say, please see link.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf

Is there something wrong with that translation? The Greek?

If you look at the very last phrase in John 1:1 (theos en ho logos) there is no Greek definite article (ho) preceding the term 'theos', this makes the term theos an indefinite predicate noun (it predicates or tells us something about the subject, in this instance the Word) the Greek is accurate, the interlinear English translation is not. If you want to make a reference to Almighty God in Greek you say, 'ho theos', the God.

you should check this site out, its truly awesome

http://biblehub.com/

it has interlinears, commentaries, definitions, concordances etc etc

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you look at the very last phrase in John 1:1 (theos en ho logos) there is no Greek definite article (ho) preceding the term 'theos', this makes the term theos an indefinite predicate noun (it predicates or tells us something about the subject, in this instance the Word) the Greek is accurate, the interlinear English translation is not. If you want to make a reference to Almighty God in Greek you say, 'ho theos', the God.

Here is another reference in the Greek stating what you said it must say to be the 'Word was God' or 'theos en ho logos'.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=john+1%3A1&t=nas

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you look at the very last phrase in John 1:1 (theos en ho logos) there is no Greek definite article (ho) preceding the term 'theos', this makes the term theos an indefinite predicate noun (it predicates or tells us something about the subject, in this instance the Word) the Greek is accurate, the interlinear English translation is not. If you wan ...[text shortened]...

http://biblehub.com/

it has interlinears, commentaries, definitions, concordances etc etc

The website looks very cool, I will ad to my tools to refute the JW! Haha, just kidding, thanks for the link much appreciated.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Here is another reference in the Greek stating what you said it must say to be the 'Word was God' or 'theos en ho logos'.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=john+1%3A1&t=nas

there are lots of translations which state 'the Word was God' and I have explained with reference why it is wrong, you may make reference to that,

On what basis are you alleging that the English must read, the word was God?

If i produce other translations to support my case it will not change what the Greek actually says, will it, all we are doing is comparing translations without actually looking upon what they are based and we will be no wiser as to why they are translated as they are, will we?

so on what basis are we to believe that 'the word was God' is an accurate translation? will we simply ignore what the Greek texts says?

Originally posted by yoctobyte
The website looks very cool, I will ad to my tools to refute the JW! Haha, just kidding, thanks for the link much appreciated.

LOL even if you never become a witness in a million years, you will learn something about the Bible, undoubtedly.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
The website looks very cool, I will ad to my tools to refute the JW! Haha, just kidding, thanks for the link much appreciated.

anyway here are some other translations which recognise the difference,

1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), byBenjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

you may also look at the sahidic coptic text, based on much earlier Greek manuscripts and dates from as early as the third century

http://copticjohn.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are lots of translations which state 'the Word was God' and I have explained with reference why it is wrong, you may make reference to that,

...[text shortened]...

so on what basis are we to believe that 'the word was God' is an accurate translation? will we simply ignore what the Greek texts says?

Well in my mind it strikes to the heart of who the Word is, Jesus and that he is God, and from the beginning. I know this differs from what you believe, I just wanted to know if your view was based on a particular translation or something else.

The two different examples (translations) I showed you have it as the 'Word was God'. Is this an accurate translation of the Greek, I don't know, I am not one schooled heavily in the Greek... but it is 2 for 2, probably many more I imagine. I suppose we can make anything mean what we want it, at the end of the day is it true?

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Well in my mind it strikes to the heart of who the Word is, Jesus and that he is God, and from the beginning. I know this differs from what you believe, I just wanted to know if your view was based on a particular translation or something else.

The two different examples (translations) I showed you have it as the 'Word was God'. Is this an accurate ...[text shortened]... imagine. I suppose we can make anything mean what we want it, at the end of the day is it true?

My assertion is that its translated as 'the Word was God', because of religious bias, not because that's what the Greek text actually says. If there is any textual basis for translating the text as, 'The word was God', I'd be glad to hear it.

Basing an argument on the basis of, 'its true because many believe it to be true;, or in this instance, 'its true because many people have translated it that way', as as you are aware is a logical fallacy.

Even contextually it cannot be Jesus, verse 18 of the same chapter says that 'no man has seen God at any time', plenty of people saw Jesus.