civic
Well-known member
No he would affirm what I'm saying.
Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
Matthias
Well-known member
No he would affirm what I'm saying.
I would bet the farm that he knows why Tyndale and the other trinitarians made the decision they did and he wouldn’t agree with your slandering of them.
civic
Well-known member
Pros in John 1:1- back to the text
PROS
with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)...after EIMI...Jn i.1 (Thayer).
be (in company) with someone...J 1:1f (BAGD).
a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships...'the Word was with God' Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)
PROS
with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)...after EIMI...Jn i.1 (Thayer).
be (in company) with someone...J 1:1f (BAGD).
a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships...'the Word was with God' Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)
Matthias
Well-known member
Pros in John 1:1- back to the text
PROS
with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)...after EIMI...Jn i.1 (Thayer).
be (in company) with someone...J 1:1f (BAGD).
a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships...'the Word was with God' Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)
Background: Isaiah 55:11.
civic
Well-known member
Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:
The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:
The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).
Matthias
Well-known member
It is an acceptable translation. See Tyndale and the other trinitarian translators.
It’s God”s creative word.
Matthias
Well-known member
“In the Beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine. It was in the Beginning with God. By it everything had being. And without it nothing had being. What had being by it was Life. And Life was the Light of men. And the Light shines in the Darkness. And the Darkness could not suppress it.”
(John 1:1-5, Hugh Schonfield, The Original New Testament, 1985)
(John 1:1-5, Hugh Schonfield, The Original New Testament, 1985)
He was the same dude who wrote The Passover Plot and held to the ludicrous belief that the bones of Jesus were possibly eaten by wild dogs after His death.
It's very telling you would quote from him.
Pitiful.
Matthias
Well-known member
“In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God, from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.”
(John 1:1-5, Robert J. Miller, The Complete Gospels, 1992)
Wallace knows these translations are acceptable. They aren’t his preference, but there is no way that he is going to do to Tyndale, and the other trinitarian scholars like him, what some of the trinitarians on this forum have done to them.
Wallace is a professional. This forum - like most forums - is amateur hour.
(John 1:1-5, Robert J. Miller, The Complete Gospels, 1992)
Wallace knows these translations are acceptable. They aren’t his preference, but there is no way that he is going to do to Tyndale, and the other trinitarian scholars like him, what some of the trinitarians on this forum have done to them.
Wallace is a professional. This forum - like most forums - is amateur hour.
Well then it is a good thing you are here so we can all be witness to your grandiose intellectual delusions.
As much as you want the Greek word to be αυτό in John 1:2, it is not αυτό. It is οὗτος. John penned οὗτος, not αυτό.
(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:2) He (οὗτος) was in the beginning with God.
If you did focus on what's actually in John 1:2 then we would be at least halfway to an agreeable resolution.
In due time. How about you? How concerned are you of what you think are translation flaws of the dozens of Bibles that got John 1:2 right with "He"?
From Origen (anathemized by the Church) to Hugh Schonfield, @Matthias really knows how to pick them.
Matthias
Well-known member
They trinis killed trinis on this hill.
Wallace wouldn’t do what they have done. He knows exactly why the translators like Tyndale did what they did and he knows what they did is acceptable.
I stand with the slain trinis.
And I love the irony.
civic
Well-known member
yes it is a strange hill to die upon
Matthias
Well-known member
Don’t forget Tyndale and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue as he did. I stand with them too.
Matthias
Well-known member
You killed them. Wallace cleaned up the mess.
Matthias
Well-known member
I'll find one of my friends scholarly work on it Dr. Bowman
I would like to see Dr. Bowman do to Tyndale and the other trinitarians what you and some other trinitarians have done to them. He won’t.
Like Wallace, Bowman will confirm that what they did was acceptable, though not his preference.
After Origen, which church forefathers of yours are you going to run to next: Arius, Nestorius, and Pelagius?
