02 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI believe it is the word order in the Greek that makes the difference. It is like this:
no one is saying that it does, therefore you will now state why in this instance the absence of the article means that the noun is definite, after all John managed to include the article when he was talking of the word and of God when he stated 'in the beginning the word (ho logos) was with (the) God (ho theos)
In [the] beginning was the Word and the word was with [ton] God, and God was the word.
Since God in the second clause is referring to God in the first clause there is no need to repeat the definte article. It should be understood by common sense. The fact that God is definite has already been established in the first clause. This God is one of a kind just like Texas in my example. Now do you get it?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by RJHindsno the word order has absolutely no bearing on whether a noun is definite or indefinite, its indicated by the use or otherwise of the article, God is definite in the first clause because it includes the definite article ad no God in the first clause is not a reference to God in the second clause, you simply made that up, God in the first clause is definite, God in the second clause indefinite and so far you have produced no valid reason to explain why the theos in the second clause can or should be considered as definite, the Word is definite, the first Theos is definite the last theos is not. How do we know that there is no correlation between the first theos and the last, because theos is not the subject of the sentence, the Word or logos is.
I believe it is the word order in the Greek that makes the difference. It is like this:
[b]In [the] beginning was the Word and the word was with [ton] God, and God was the word.
Since God in the second clause is referring to God in the first clause there is no need to repeat the definte article. It should be understood by common sense. The fact ...[text shortened]... n the first clause. This God is one of a kind just like Texas in my example. Now do you get it?[/b]
so far what you have proffered is
1. there may be exceptions to the rule (you have not stated why John 1:1 should be considered an exception)
2. that we should understand 'by common sense', that there is no need to repeat the the definite article except that John did just that when he makes reference to the Word or logos, not once but three times
en arche en ho logos, kia ho logos en pros ton theon, kia theos en ho logos
why if there is no necessity to repeat the definite article does John do that consistently with the Word, ho logos, three times?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps the other 3 places in John 1 that do not use a definite article and yet even the JW org says they mean "the God". Why is this one spot singled out? Dogma.
no one is saying that it does, therefore you will now state why in this instance the absence of the article means that the noun is definite, after all John managed to include the article when he was talking of the word and of God when he stated 'in the beginning the word (ho logos) was with (the) God (ho theos)
02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneGreek is quite clear, if you want to make a noun definite you add the article, 'ho theos', literally The God, there is no article on the theos in the last clause, it is therefore an anarthrous predicate noun, this has nothing to do with the watchtower bible and tract society and your irrelevant remark will be ignored as unfit for serious comment.
Perhaps the other 3 places in John 1 that do not use a definite article and yet even the JW org says they mean "the God". Why is this one spot singled out? Dogma.
02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA literal translation in the order written would be:
no the word order has absolutely no bearing on whether a noun is definite or indefinite, its indicated by the use or otherwise of the article, God is definite in the first clause because it includes the definite article ad no God in the first clause is not a reference to God in the second clause, you simply made that up, God in the first clause is de ...[text shortened]... repeat the definite article does John do that consistently with the Word, ho logos, three times?
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was God and God was the Word.
See:
the Word was God and
God was the Word
In grammar, the subject and the predicate noun essentially refer to the same thing. God is God and needs no definite article to be God. God just is.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is because you have no serious comment. You must ignore it or admit your dogma is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Greek is quite clear, if you want to make a noun definite you add the article, 'ho theos', literally The God, there is no article on the theos in the last clause, it is therefore an anarthrous predicate noun, this has nothing to do with the watchtower bible and tract society and your irrelevant remark will be ignored as unfit for serious comment.
02 Feb 14
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsyou have failed to asnwer these questions,
That is because you have no serious comment. You must ignore it or admit your dogma is wrong, wrong, wrong.
1. why the translators that you cite have a better understanding of Greek than Moffat who was a professor of Greek
2. why John 1:1 should be considered as an exception to the Greek idiom
3. why when there is no definite article in the second clause theos that it should be considered and treated as having a definite article. Sating that it was understood was refuted because as we determined, the author included the definite article three times when speaking of the subject of the clause, the logos.
4. why it should not, according to the grammatical structure and Greek idiom to be considered as a anarthous predicate noun signifying a quality rather than the personage of God.
5. Why the subject and the predicate have different functions within the sentence, the predicate describes a quality about the subject, for example, R .J Hinds is a moron, the subject, R J Hinds and moron have entirely different functions, the former identifies the personage and the other describes a quality about that personage. They are not the same thing.
your irrelevant comments will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey can't. As simple as that....
you have failed to asnwer these questions,
1. why the translators that you cite have a better understanding of Greek than Moffat who was a professor of Greek
2. why John 1:1 should be considered as an exception to the Greek idiom
3. why when there is no definite article in the second clause theos that it should be considered and treated as ...[text shortened]... not the same thing.
your irrelevant comments will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
03 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. The other translators are better because Moffatt is of the liberal school and puts his liberal spin on his translation.
you have failed to asnwer these questions,
1. why the translators that you cite have a better understanding of Greek than Moffat who was a professor of Greek
2. why John 1:1 should be considered as an exception to the Greek idiom
3. why when there is no definite article in the second clause theos that it should be considered and treated as ...[text shortened]... not the same thing.
your irrelevant comments will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
2. What Greek idiom?
3. The definite article has to be included when speaking of the Word or else it could be any word. However, the sentence structure and content of the text indicates Theos (God) refers to the true God and no definite article is needed for it should be understood that it is not referring to an indefinite god, but to Jesus. And as suzianne pointed out John omits the definite article in other places when referring to God. Yet you have made no objection to those.
4. In grammar, the subject and the predicate noun essentially refer to the same thing.
5. That is just the way it is.
03 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I know, they have not done very well, first jawill, then the jeester, then Hinds, then suzzianne, not a valid reasoned answer among them, nothing but a morass of subterfuge, evasion, irrelevancy and logic fallacy,
3 wrongs? Lol. Oh you must be right then.
Truly Gods word is alive and is like a two edged sword, able to penetrate deep into the heart and overturn deeply entrenched ideas.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Feb 14
5 edits
How can the Father's life be other than the Father ?
What is more one with the Father than His own divine and eternal life ?
This divine life which was with the Father the apostles saw, heard, beheld and handled. They empirically witnessed then God become a man.
"That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we beheld and our hands handled,
concerning the Word of life.
(And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.); " (1 John 1:1,2)
The eternal life was with the Father because it is the Father's own uncreated life.
The eternal life was manifested on earth, in time and space in Jesus Christ - the Word become flesh.
As the Word was with God and was God (John 1:1) so also the eternal life was with the Father and is the Father's own life (1 John 1:1,2). Jesus Christ is God the uncreated and eternal life become a man.
Therefore to know the life of God embodied in the Word is to have fellowship with the Father and the Son.
"That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
And these things we write that our joy may be full." (vs.3,4)