>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>Actually, if we go by the KJV, I believe we'll find that
>most PNs are translated indefinitely. If you take QEOS
>qualitatively, and you cannot take it definitely, and you
>cannot demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative, you have
>no basis for objecting to the indefinite translation.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Again I said that it is the best fit, and CONTEXT (don't forget this one) drives more towards the qualitative usage over the others, if you want to go indefinite fine, but it is not the best answer.

Here is why: John only uses the imperfect for Christ an aorist for everything else in the first 18 chapters thus stressing the Logos eternality.

>>(Tony-Reply4)
>QEOS is not a name, it is a title. The Jews had no problem
>using the term QEOS at that time, as evident in scripture.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: But to call another being by the same title as YHWH in the same verse is not correct.
>(Tony-Reply4)
>Certainly it is, but there is no objection to translating it
>definitely either. In light of QEOS in John 1:1c not being
>purely qualitiative, it is to be taken as
>qualitative-indefinite.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: That is fine but it is not the best fit.
>
>>(Tony-Reply4)
>John used HN in verse 10, where it is clearly inceptive. He
>used GEGONEN in verse 4. It depends on what aspect he wants
>to stress. If he wants to stress him being in the state he
>entered or if he wants to stress him entering the state.
>Obviously in verses 1 and 10 he wanted to stress him being
>in the state he entered.

Response: I already answered you in regards to why an inceptive would fit in verse 10 as opposed to verse 1, because

1. eternality is not in view

2. verse 9 tells us that he is the one coming into the world, therefore he must have began the action of coming into the world.

3. In John 1:1 however there is no such context, hence you keep going over to Rev 3:14 for help, because the context doesn not help you.

4. you have yet to address en verses egeneto.
>
>As for Rev 3:14, originator is ruled out by the use of TOU
>QEOU, while ruler would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: why? The originator of God's creation.
>(Tony-Reply4)Nice claim. Care to back it up? It functions
>exactly as I have stated in John 1:10, your theological
>presupposition seems to limit you from accepting it in John
>1:1 though.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Sure, as I have said before.

1. Inceptive illustrate someone beginning to do an action.

2. There is not action being done in John 1:1

3. If there was action being done to the Logos such as creation there would be a passive verb there or at least an aorist, meaning he was created and the creation is complete.

>(Tony-Reply4)
>You are using incorrect punctuation is the problem. The
>NA27 GNT places a full stop between hHN and hO GEGONEN.
>According to the testimony of the early church fathers, hO
>GEGONEN goes with verse 4, as done by the New Jerusalem
>Bible.

Respnse: I am sure that there the majority of realible manuscripts float towards the GNT. BEsides it makes more sense the way teh GNT has it.
>>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>I can demonstrate my claims by example, you do nothing more
>than make empty claims. You have yet to demonstrate your
>position on anything even a single time.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

REsponse: Actually I have they just keep getting erased by you, I know I have brought up en verses egeneto before, I know I have brought up the issue of eternaltiy etc.
>(Tony-Reply4)
>You're still not getting it. You assume eternality, but the
>text is 100% ambiguous to anyone who really understands the
>language. HN, if we do not take it inceptively, denotes him
>being in the state of existence at the ARCH, it has no
>bearing on if he has eternally been there or only been there
>for a limited time prior.
>(/Tony-Reply4)

Response: Yes it does, because John does not tell us when the beginnign was, he leaves it wide open and since the gives everything else that is creatred egeneto it is easy to see that eternality is in view.
>
>(Tony-Reply4)
>And in light of that, it is not purely qualitative, and so
>it is indefinitized, ala the NWT, thus resulting in a
>perfectly acceptable translation.
>(/Tony-Reply4).

Response: Uh no, it does not have to be indefinitized ala every single realible bible translation.