|
>> >>(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.
(Tony-Reply5) 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)
> >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-Reply5) Wrong. Verse 14 uses GINOMAI for Christ, while verse 10 uses HN inceptively for him. (/Tony-Reply5)
> >>>(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-Reply5) Why? The Jews didn't seem to have a problem with it.
John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham.
John 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.
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. (/Tony-Reply5)
>>(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.
(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.
2. And verse 4 tells us that life came to be in the son.
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.
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.
(/Tony-Reply5)
>> >>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-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)
>>(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-Reply5) There is no action!?!?! Then what is that pesky verb doing there!? There is absolutely action there.. He was eimi-ing. 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. (/Tony-Reply5)
> >>(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-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)
>>> >>(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-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. (/Tony-Reply5)
>>(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-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)
>> >>(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.
(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.
The Translator's New Testament: "the Word was a God." The New Testament in Greek and English: "and the word was a god." George William Horner, 1911, "nd (a) God was the word." Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god." Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god." Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person." Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god." Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god." Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, "s a god the Command was." Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God." The Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 Edition: "a god was the Word." (/Tony-Reply5)
Tony-Conclusion5- Osoclasi, you continue to deny that HN can be taken inceptively ala John 1:10. If he uses HN inceptively in 10, something you've already admitted to, even though he uses GINOMAI in the context, your basis for denying the same thing for verse 1 is without foundation. You are demonstrating nothing more than a theological bias. Further, when noting that 1 John 1:1 is a parallel to John 1:1, stating he is "from the beginning", the position of HN being inceptive is further solidified. And yet, even further, when we follow the proper punctuation, as demonstrated by all of the early Church writers, we find that life came to be in Christ. Trinitarianism is simply not found in John 1. In fact, these verses damage the doctrine more than any Trinitarian could possibly imagine.
Regards, Tony
|