Comments on: Eric Douma: John 1:1 & Titus 2:13 http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2383 Writings, Opinions, and Podcast from a Conservative Christian Worldview Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:50:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: JohnOneOne http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2383/comment-page-1#comment-21650 JohnOneOne Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:20:04 +0000 http://www.echozoe.com/?p=2383#comment-21650 Dear έχω ζωη, Regarding the recording you've mentioned, to be honest, I've haven't as yet finished it. As for your comment: "As Eric pointed out in the episode, JW’s only follow their own rule (to add the indefinite article) 6% of the time. The other 94% of the time, you violate your own rule." This is simply not true. If you (and any others looking on) were to re-read what I had stated, you should notice what most (including Eric) "miss," that is, as to the full reason why the "New World Translation" reads John 1:1c as it does. Agape, JohnOneOne. www dot goodcompanionbooks dot com Dear έχω ζωη,

Regarding the recording you’ve mentioned, to be honest, I’ve haven’t as yet finished it.

As for your comment: “As Eric pointed out in the episode, JW’s only follow their own rule (to add the indefinite article) 6% of the time. The other 94% of the time, you violate your own rule.”

This is simply not true.

If you (and any others looking on) were to re-read what I had stated, you should notice what most (including Eric) “miss,” that is, as to the full reason why the “New World Translation” reads John 1:1c as it does.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
www dot goodcompanionbooks dot com

]]> By: Lolipopp http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2383/comment-page-1#comment-21648 Lolipopp Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:27:47 +0000 http://www.echozoe.com/?p=2383#comment-21648 Just reading on in here to gain additional understanding of the Bible and the many discord among believers on many scriptures. Enjoy each and how they try to prove their poin, I Believe Granville Sharp is on the correct track?! Just reading on in here to gain additional understanding of the Bible and the many discord among believers on many scriptures. Enjoy each and how they try to prove their poin, I Believe Granville Sharp is on the correct track?!

]]> By: έχω ζωη http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2383/comment-page-1#comment-21647 έχω ζωη Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:47:07 +0000 http://www.echozoe.com/?p=2383#comment-21647 You clearly didn’t take the time to listen to the episode. You saw in the description that we tackled John 1:1 (probably subscribed to some Google keyword alert) and thought you’d get your explanation of a heretical view in. You are a Jehovah’s Witness (as is obvious from the website you referred to). As Eric pointed out in the episode, JW's only follow their own rule (to add the indefinite article)6% of the time. The other 94% of the time, you violate your own rule. Tell me this, If Jesus is just “a god” and not the second person of a Trinitarian God, is he a true god, or a false god? Do you have any comment on the Granville Sharp’s Rule in Titus 2:13? I’m guessing, as I mentioned above, that you get some keyword alerts from Google, which is how you found this website. You will jump in, drop your comments and disappear into the ether. In other words, I have my doubts that we’ll hear from you again. However, you are welcome to address the issues I’ve raised. You clearly didn’t take the time to listen to the episode. You saw in the description that we tackled John 1:1 (probably subscribed to some Google keyword alert) and thought you’d get your explanation of a heretical view in. You are a Jehovah’s Witness (as is obvious from the website you referred to). As Eric pointed out in the episode, JW’s only follow their own rule (to add the indefinite article)6% of the time. The other 94% of the time, you violate your own rule.

Tell me this, If Jesus is just “a god” and not the second person of a Trinitarian God, is he a true god, or a false god?

Do you have any comment on the Granville Sharp’s Rule in Titus 2:13?

I’m guessing, as I mentioned above, that you get some keyword alerts from Google, which is how you found this website. You will jump in, drop your comments and disappear into the ether. In other words, I have my doubts that we’ll hear from you again. However, you are welcome to address the issues I’ve raised.

]]> By: JohnOneOne http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2383/comment-page-1#comment-21645 JohnOneOne Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:32:18 +0000 http://www.echozoe.com/?p=2383#comment-21645 Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god") often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*' - that is, not just that use of the noun 'theos' in the third clause is lacking the Greek definite article. (In the Greek language of this period, there was no such thing as an indefinite article; therefore, depending upon the grammar, syntax, immediate and global context of the phrase, when translating to English, the decision on whether to add an indefinite article or not would be made by the translator.) Quite interestingly, at other places within the "New Testament" where the syntax (Greek word order) is also the same as that found within John 1:1c, it is not uncommon to read where Bible translators will typically add the English indefinite article, either as an "a" or "an". You may wish to examine the following within your own preferred translation(s) of the Bible, that is, to see whether, within those works, such had actually been done. Here are a few scriptures to look into: Mark 6:49 Mark 11:32 John 4:19 John 6:70 John 8:44a John 8:44b John 9:17 John 10:1 John 10:13 John 10:33 John 12:6 Quite interestingly, when we encounter that very same Greek grammatical construction in John 1:1c, many translators do not follow the same guideline, that is, as when they had translated the above verses. Apparently, this inconsistency is due to their own theologically induced predisposition, that of the centuries old, "Catholic" inspired tradition, the unbiblical belief that God is a Trinity. In other words, unknown to their readers, they are just being dishonest. Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," as well as to address many of the other issues often raised by such wording. This is just a number of the many points we hope to address within our forthcoming work, "What About John 1:1?" To discover something of its design and progress, you are invited to visit: goodcompanionbooks dot com Agape, JohnOneOne Many who take issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” of ‘theos’ in John 1:1c (as, “a god”) often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is ‘a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*’ – that is, not just that use of the noun ‘theos’ in the third clause is lacking the Greek definite article. (In the Greek language of this period, there was no such thing as an indefinite article; therefore, depending upon the grammar, syntax, immediate and global context of the phrase, when translating to English, the decision on whether to add an indefinite article or not would be made by the translator.)

Quite interestingly, at other places within the “New Testament” where the syntax (Greek word order) is also the same as that found within John 1:1c, it is not uncommon to read where Bible translators will typically add the English indefinite article, either as an “a” or “an”. You may wish to examine the following within your own preferred translation(s) of the Bible, that is, to see whether, within those works, such had actually been done. Here are a few scriptures to look into:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

Quite interestingly, when we encounter that very same Greek grammatical construction in John 1:1c, many translators do not follow the same guideline, that is, as when they had translated the above verses. Apparently, this inconsistency is due to their own theologically induced predisposition, that of the centuries old, “Catholic” inspired tradition, the unbiblical belief that God is a Trinity. In other words, unknown to their readers, they are just being dishonest.

Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a rendering as, “and the Word was a god,” as well as to address many of the other issues often raised by such wording. This is just a number of the many points we hope to address within our forthcoming work, “What About John 1:1?”

To discover something of its design and progress, you are invited to visit:

goodcompanionbooks dot com

Agape, JohnOneOne

]]>