>
>I have been waitnig for a response to that for the entire
>thread.
>
>
>>Yet, in light of the fact that it cannot be purely
>>qualitative, because you cannot demonstrate such a count
>>noun even exists, and that it cannot be
>>qualitative-definite, because that would be modalism, the
>>only solution is that it is qualitative-indefinite, thus
>>making the NWT fit perfectly!
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: it does not have to be purely qualitative in order
>for someone to translate or even for it to mean that it is
>to be taken qualitatiely you are making up your own rules
>here.
>

(Tony-Reply6) It would have to be purely qualitative for an indefinite rendering to not be perfectly acceptable. These are not my rules, this is just basic grammar.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Wrong. Verse 14 uses GINOMAI for Christ, while verse 10
>>uses HN inceptively for him.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: I was hoping you would say that i spoke to my
>professor today and verse 10 is not inceptive either. I was
>wrong about that as well. But more later tonight or
>tomorrow abut it. He is simply surveing Jesus life it is a
>normal imperfect.

(Tony-Reply6)
When you get stuck, what else is there to do but to change your position? I see no reason for not taking it as inceptive, because he was in the world from the point in which he entered the world.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Why? The Jews didn't seem to have a problem with it.
>
>God gets the title Father and so does Abraham. And now,
>>before you go and run and say that it isn't the same verse,
>>the Bible was not written in verses, they are a later
>>addition. It is in the very same context, they said one
>>after another. If God and Abraham can be equated on such a
>>level, so can God and Jesus.
>
>Response; Good point. I will think about that one later.
>>
>
>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>1. You ASSUME eternity is in view in verse 1. Whether or
>>not it is or isn't is not significant though. Even if it
>>is, that does not stop HN being inceptive.
>
>Response: Actually it does, there has to be some action
>began by someone for it to be inceptive.

(Tony-Reply6)
Well the verb is an eimi-verb and thus, it is the action of being. He was being in the ARCH, and he began being such. So again, no reason not to take it inceptively.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>2. And verse 4 tells us that life came to be in the son.
>
>Response: No it says life was in the Son

(Tony-Reply6)
hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4 ala the ANF and the NJB and others. It says live CAME TO BE in the Son. Who knew the punctuation better, you or the early church writers who grew up around the language?

Bible in Basic English: What came into existence in him was life, and the life was the light of men.

New Jerusalem Bible: What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>3. Verse 3 is part of the context! I would also note the
>>parallel at 1 John 1:1, which states he is "from the
>>beginning", denoting the ARCH as his source, further hinting
>>at Hn being inceptive.
>
>Respnose: No he is was he was in the beginnnign with an non
>inceptive imperfect letting pointing to his eternallity, if
>he was created engeneto would have been used.

(Tony-Reply6)
And your basis for this conclusion is what? If HN is inceptive, and I've provided good reason for it to be such, and John wanted place emphasis on his being in the state instead of entering the state, Hn would be perfect. Either way, you've yet to counter my point when I highlighted if the ARCH was 20 billion years ago and Jesus was created 25 billion years ago, HN would be used still. You assume a priori that hO LOGOS is eternal.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>4) Yes, I have. It comes down to what John wanted to
>>stress. The inceptive imperfect places greater stress on
>>the fact that he existed in the state he entered, while the
>>GINOMAI places stress on him entering the state.
>
>Response: Ginomai stresses that the world was created and
>had a starting point.

(Tony-Reply6)
EXACTLY. What did John want to stress? Did he want to stress entering the state or being in the state? If we wanted to stress entering it, he would use GINOMAI, if he wanted to stress being in it, he would use HN. That does not rule out HN being inceptive.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>(Tony-Reply5) Because God is the originator of God's
>>creation! It belongs to him, not the ARCH. Further, Jesus
>>is shown to be the intermediate agent (John 1:3, Col 1:16),
>>something that would contradict him being the source. Him
>>being the source would require 2 groups of creation, which
>>there are not. And as I already highlighted, ARCH is never
>>used in scripture to show source.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: That is a good point however, Christ could be
>viewed as the ruler of God's creation. I will rethink the
>orignator part.

(Tony-Reply6)
If he was ruler, it would be ARCWN ala Rev. 1:5.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>There is no action!?!?! Then what is that pesky verb doing
>>there!? There is absolutely action there.. He was
>>eimi-ing.
>
>Response: THen he would be beginnig to eimi-ing if the
>inceptive was the case.

(Tony-Reply6)
Exactly. However, the emphesis here is on him being in the state of eimi-ing, not entering it.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>
> The inceptive imperfect is perfectly allowable
>>there, but theologically you must deny it. You have not
>>given me any grammatical grounds for doing so, however, in
>>light of the fact that you've already admitted that verse 10
>>has one, your grounds for denying it in verse 1 have grown
>>about as strong as a toothpick.
>
>Response: actually verse 10 does not have one, I spoke to my
>professor today and he explained how ni light of JOhn
>surveying CHrist life it is a normal imperfect.
>>

(Tony-Reply6)
I disagree, because Christ HN EN TON KOSMON once he entered into the world. From that point on, he was in it. So it is definitely inceptive. You might want to ask your professor why it is not inceptive instead of just taking his word for it, because I have yet to find a reasonable answer for why we shouldn't.
(/Tony-Reply6)



>>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Yes, the GNT has no punctuation, so it does make the most
>>sense that way. In light of it lacking such, we go to how
>>the earliest people understood it.. specifically those who
>>were native koine Greek speakers. These ones all connected
>>hO GEGONEN to verse 4, and so we should do the same.
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: Not in light of newer and more efficient
>manuscripts and our ability to translate better.

(Tony-Reply6)
Wrong. The MSS have zero punctuation and no word breaks. The early church writers, who wrote, spoke and lived the language knew where hO GEGONEN went, and they all placed it with verse 4. They knew the language better than even the best scholars today.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>
>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>And you know what, bringing it up doesn't PROVE anything.
>>Check this out: God is a 5 dimensional being. Guess what.
>>If you just say he is 3D, and I say no he is 5D, have I
>>proved something? Nope. And neither have you. I have
>>demonstrated the inceptive imperfect in John 1, I have
>>explained the difference between the use of HN and GINOMAI.
>>You have come back with nothing more than tiresome
>>repetition that completely fails to engage the points I've
>>made.
>
>Response; Ya knwo you never addressed en verses egeneto.

(Tony-Reply6)
I have multiple times now, you just keep ignoring it. HN stresses entering the state, GINOMAI stresses entering the state. If HN is inceptive, it still stress being in the state, but only being in the state once it is entered.
(/Tony-Reply6)

>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>Yawn... Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions. Let us stop
>>with the eisigesis and return to exegesis please. hO
>>GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN (What has came to be in him was
>>life). Yes, life came to be in Christ! How much clearly can
>>scripture be!?
>>(/Tony-Reply5)
>
>Response: No life was in him and the world came to be, by
>the way you erased en verses engeneto.

(Tony-Reply6)
Already addressed. Life Came to BE in Him.
(/Tony-Reply6)


>>
>>>(Tony-Reply5)
>>99% of the Bible translations out there (all the ones that
>>say "and the Word was God") are actually teaching modalism,
>>since QEOS is treated definitely. Here are just a few of
>>the MANY that make QEOS indefinite.
>
>Response; No qualitative you are taknig stafford greek
>lessons over there, no one thinks that way but him. See ya
>either tonight or tomorrow
>>

(Tony-Reply6)
"the Word was God" is absolutely a definite translation. It is not qualitative, for "God" here is used with the semantic force of a proper name! How much for definite can it be!?!? That is modalism my friend, not a qualitative translation.
(/Tony-Reply6)