Kingdom Interlinear - Barryrob

[Disco-Inferno]

AnsBible;

This reply is in regards to your comments below:

You wrote:
"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.
End quotation

I'm sorry, where do you get the concept that the "definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb"? Can you please provide a grammatical reference for this supposed rule in Greek. I suspect you're either misunderstanding E.C. Colwells article, or you're misquoting it (as did Walter Martin).

Secondly, you state, "So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek." I'm curious, how much Greek have you studied? To claim that "a god" is "incorrect grammar and poor Greek" reveals your lack of understanding regarding the language. You would do well to study the following quotation lifted from the 1951 The Expository Times article entitled "A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek." (Vol. 62, page 315):

Dr Griffiths writes :

Taken by itself, the sentence KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS; could admittedly bear either of two meanings : 1) 'and the Word was (the) God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God.' It is then possible to argue that translation (2) brings the predicative noun nearer to the position of an adjective.

End quotation

I would also like to add that if you take the translation "and the Word was the God", then you've set up modalism.

What do you think?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Tsmith]

Ansbible,

Is it safe to assume that what you have provided is a copy and paste from another source?

I ask because whoever wrote this significantly lacks an understanding of the Greek language. If this is your writing I will reply, however I prior post already refutes most of this, as it simply is a rehash of the same errors written by Walter Martin.

[Disco-Inferno]

PioneerSDA;

You posted this exact same information under another thread. Please learn to interact with the points that have been presented namely the grammar of a predicate nominative preceeding the verb with respects to it's definite, indefinite, or qualitative rendering.

You have not presented anything positive or meaningful to our discussion at hand. Please pick up the points already on the table before us or keep yourself to your thread.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Sparko]

Moderated By: JohnSparks

OK as per PioneerSDA's request, I took her post out of this thread and moved it to a new thread in Unorthodox Theology.

If any one wants to interact with it, it is located at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49561

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader, Jaltus, AnsBible, et. alt;

Where are you guys? TSmith and I are waiting for your replies in connection to the arguments we've presented. Initially, I looked forward to interacting with Trinitarians who are familiar with Greek and the arguments/pitfalls of John 1:1. However, it appears as if those mentioned above have "flamed out" and are no where to be found. At the outset of this thread Crusader challenged BarryRob with the following:

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

END QUOTE

We can, and have demonstrated our ability to work with the Greek text, where is your rebuttal? We dealt with Walter Martin and his outdated/misguided arguments which promote Modalism. Please let us know if you're willing to or able to respond to the arguments we've presented. Otherwise, we will move on.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader, Jaltus, AnsBible, et. alt;

Where are you guys? TSmith and I are waiting for your replies in connection to the arguments we've presented. Initially, I looked forward to interacting with Trinitarians who are familiar with Greek and the arguments/pitfalls of John 1:1. However, it appears as if those mentioned above have "flamed out" and are no where to be found. At the outset of this thread Crusader challenged BarryRob with the following:

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

END QUOTE

We can, and have demonstrated our ability to work with the Greek text, where is your rebuttal? We dealt with Walter Martin and his outdated/misguided arguments which promote Modalism. Please let us know if you're willing to or able to respond to the arguments we've presented. Otherwise, we will move on.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.

A good site to visit on this subject is found at:

http://www.hcm2.org/studies/essentia...understand.htm

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader;

This is it? Please tell me that you have more in the works. TSmith and I are prepared to discuss every PN fronting the verb (same grammatical construction as found in John 1:1c) found in the Gospel of John, Anabasis, or any other Greek text of your choosing.

BEGIN QUOTE
I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.
END QUOTE

By the way, I don't want a link to a website. Anyone can do that. I want you to interact with the Greek text. If you cannot do that then tells us, "I do not know Greek and therefore I cannot interact with the both of you." You accused BarryRob of using "WT helps", however, it appears as if you're the one having to rely on "anti-JW helps" inorder to formulate your position. Furthermore, TSmith responded in a detailed fashion to all of your arguments that you've initally presented, where's your response?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader;

This is it? Please tell me that you have more in the works. TSmith and I are prepared to discuss every PN fronting the verb (same grammatical construction as found in John 1:1c) found in the Gospel of John, Anabasis, or any other Greek text of your choosing.

BEGIN QUOTE
I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.
END QUOTE

By the way, I don't want a link to a website. Anyone can do that. I want you to interact with the Greek text. If you cannot do that then tells us, "I do not know Greek and therefore I cannot interact with the both of you." You accused BarryRob of using "WT helps", however, it appears as if you're the one having to rely on "anti-JW helps" inorder to formulate your position. Furthermore, TSmith responded in a detailed fashion to all of your arguments that you've initally presented, where's your response?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

Andrew, from what college of university did you get your degree in ancient biblical languages?

All you do is parrot the Watchtower line - put your time to better use.

[Tsmith]

Andrew, from what college of university did you get your degree in ancient biblical languages?

All you do is parrot the Watchtower line - put your time to better use.

Crusader,

It sounds to me that you are unable to deal with the simply points of grammar presented. Your argument has been completely refuted. Care to present another verse you have trouble with?

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader;

Once again, can you deal with the text? Please list examples from the Gospel of John which supports your case. Please confront the text and the subject matter at hand. I don't have to hide behind "websites" or the Watchtower, I can read the text for myself.

Please deal with the text!

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader;

Once again, can you deal with the text? Please list examples from the Gospel of John which supports your case. Please confront the text and the subject matter at hand. I don't have to hide behind "websites" or the Watchtower, I can read the text for myself.

Please deal with the text!

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

Once again, from which college or university did you earn your doctorate in ancient / Biblical languages?

[Jaltus]

Jaltus,

There is little basis for concluding QEOS to be definite. With such, the result is modalism, not Trinitarianism.

That is an assertion with no argument. I need not reply.

Were QEOS definite, the author simply could have used the definite article, with little consequence, but he expressly did not. John 1:1c does not use QEOS as a name or a title, but as a predicate nominative it is a class noun. As a count noun, it must be definite or indefinite. If it is definite, we have modalism. If it is indefinite, we translate it as "a god". Thus, Trinitarians argue for the nearly impossible to prove "purely qualitative". construct.

This ignores the issue that, in Greek, once a noun is originally stated as definite (e.g. has the article), the subsequent restatements do not need the article in order to maintain definiteness.

I agree that qualitative is ruled out by the structure and the grammar. However, "a god" is ruled out simply by context. If "a god" or "a different god" were meant, other Greek words or phrases would be used (e.g. [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeioV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] or [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]alloV qeoV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]). Context rules out your argument quite clearly.

T

he use of QEOS is the C position has a completely different function than that of the B. B has the semantic force of a proper name, while C is a class noun, but with a different referent.

First, you have equivocated in naming a class noun.

Second, you have yet to show that [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeoV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] can ever function as a class noun in the singular (technically, I am not sure if it ever does, especially in Koine, though you might find some occurrences in classical, but that is a different dialect).

Having considered these points, your arguments simply carry little weight.

You have not made an argument yet, all you have done is made assertions. I am waiting for an argument that contains actual data and evidence.

[Jaltus]

Once again, from which college or university did you earn your doctorate in ancient / Biblical languages?

Does being a candidate in NT studies count? How about a degree in Classical Greek and a Master's of Divinity?

What is your educational background?

Oh, and sorry for not replying sooner, I am just really swamped with RL at the moment, including publishing deadlines and working on my dissertation.

[Krusader]

Does being a candidate in NT studies count? How about a degree in Classical Greek and a Master's of Divinity?

What is your educational background?

Oh, and sorry for not replying sooner, I am just really swamped with RL at the moment, including publishing deadlines and working on my dissertation.

Your degree is from what university? Where are you candidating? What is your view on the Trinity?

I'm a Rutgers person, myself.

[Jaltus]

Undergrad is from Calvin College. I got my BS there, with one major being classical Greek.

My PhD will be from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

And your degrees are...?