Jehovah`s Witness/your list of "scholars"..cont'd
Okay Champ lets me and you get a few things straigt. First you dont call me dumb because of something you did. If anyone is dumb its you, for listing demon possessed people as scholars who support your nwt. Next, I dont care what you change the title to, as I have titled it the same as the last one........"your list of 'scholars'...cont'd.
Now lets also get straight that Scott is not here to answer your questions. You are here to answer mine. Now you lie further when you claim I changed the subject in my last thread. No, you tried to change it and I didnt let you. The subject in the second was the same as it was in the first. Namely, why you lied about the "scholars" and why you used men who hear from demons. I send them as new threads because I have noticed that followups just get attached to the previos answer and dont get seen as readily, and I want people to see you dodge this question and not apologize for misleading them. Each time you try it.
Your listing the link was pretty dumb, but still doesnt mean you werent trying to hide anything. I still dont think you read each comment by the 'scholars' or you wouldnt have used them. Maybe you thought people would just take your word. Either way, you messed up when you said
>>>>>>Yeah I read the list and I knew it was an opposing site but that doesn't change who the scholars are ,first you said I mislead then at the end you acknowledged it was a excellent website.I listed it the Shane as well go check.
I cant believe you call people dumb and then write this. It is an excellent website in that it shows that many of the people you quoted were NOT real scholars. Yet you used them as such and claim you had such a long list of "scholars". Doesnt change who they are? Thats right. It shows most of them arent even scholars to begin with.
Then you said that if 1 "scholar" is quoted correctly then that proves the nwt right? No it doesnt as there are countless REAL scholars that prove it wrong. So does that prove that if there are many scholars that dont agree with the nwt, then that proves its wrong? Man youre sharp. But I suppose thats your way of defending your dishonest list, huh?
Now let me word my question a diffrent way that maybe you can understand this time. Do you stand by your list of 'scholars' which contain occultists, unitarians, and others misquoted?
Ok Scott ,Its clear you wont answer my question but let me say this ,you will have to address this to one of Gods angelic destroyers:
(Psalm 37:10) . . .And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.
thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
Now you can go ask your Pastor the meaning of "Not BE"
He might say that means you will be ushered into heaven which would he says be describing
where Jesus said:
(Matthew 24:41) . . .: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. . .
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
The one taken here is taught to be whisked away to heaven
This event unfortunately is the same event foretold by David and the one taken is put to death.
How we know,because the verse before says:
(Psalm 37:10) 10 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more. . .
(Psalm 37:10) . . .And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. . .
So you will answer one day my question.
As to the list you keep saying I made a mistake providing the list as if I stupidly submitted it without reading not knowing the negative comments as if this my first spiritual rodeo.
Once again my purpose was to provide the list from a non witness site or the Watchtower,we have the same list but I din't want it said thats your list so it must be tainted.
"Your listing the link was pretty dumb, but still doesnt mean you werent trying to hide anything. I still dont think you read each comment by the 'scholars' or you wouldnt have used them. Maybe you thought people would just take your word. Either way, you messed up when you said
>>>>>>Yeah I read the list and I knew it was an opposing site but that doesn't change who the scholars are ,first you said I mislead then at the end you acknowledged it was a excellent website.I listed it the Shane as well go check."
Why would I think just my word would suffice without just clicking the link I provided for Shane a week ago,really I didn't care one way or the other if you are one of my readers you should know that.My whole point was to show we had at least one Greek noted scholar and what that meant to the list of those who opposed John 1-1 NWT rendering.
"Then you said that if 1 "scholar" is quoted correctly then that proves the nwt right? No it doesnt as there are countless REAL scholars that prove it wrong. So does that prove that if there are many scholars that dont agree with the nwt, then that proves its wrong? Man youre sharp. But I suppose thats your way of defending your dishonest list, huh?"
Was that what I said,I believe I said:
I claim victory for the simple fact that if just one Greek scholar support JW rendering that Jesus is a god and not God that tells me its the correct terminology that John was conveying
This is a fact that all English translations of scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times we see this yet not at John 1:1.
Why is it then that some GK scholars agree and some do not,it has to be in the end to personal bias,cant be anything else,if as a noted GK scholar who was brought up as a church person and taught Jesus is GOD he will be slanted to prove John 1-1 is GOD and not a god,thats just common sense,but what about the GK scholar who says it could be rendered a god just as well GOD,why would any noted GK scholar agree is a question you will in the end have to answer for yourself as I'm slanted to a god as a GK scholar.
Its clear you cant understand my point so Ill put it another way,it can be rendered God or a god
since Greek has no indefinite article ,if you cant understand that I'm sorry,I guess I'm assuming you are intelligent my mistake if you are just plain dumb.
In english we have definite and indefinite articles but in Greek there are definite articles but no indefinite article,I dont know how else to explain it any more simple.
In the text the term for God is twice used. In the first instance, the word is accompanied by the article in the second to the word,logos there is no article,now if you are to dumb to understand that again I'm sorry,any Greek scholar like myself or any learned Greek scholar on the list or not can with the rule insert an "a" there and all Greek scholars know that.
To be honest Scott this is way over your head Sir,but Ill continue if you understand ,doesn't matter to me if you do or dont its for my readers who want truth.
Lets look at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says:
But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit
What do you notice about the text if anything.
Do you see an "a" ,sorry to treat you like a 5th grader but you act like one,I brought this out before but it was more indepth so you didn't catch it,for all I know you still dont.
In Koine Greek which the NT was written in there is no “a” before spirit,Let me say it again:
THERE IS NO a BEFORE SPIRIT
As dumb as you are can you see where I'm going with this
why does KJ add the "a" here? when it was not in the text.
In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”
Translaters add when it fit there beliefs and omit when it doesn't ,the NT has hundreds of examples like this.
Colwell who is on the list claimed, John 1:1 should read “and [the] God was the Word.
But at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil:
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar,
Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns precede the verbs in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a” because Greek grammar and the context require it
Colwell himself had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun for he said: “It is indefinite [“a” or “an”] in this position only when the context demands it.”
So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.
Again my question will have to be answered by you ,now or later:
Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1
Mark 10:18) . . .Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God. .
Why would Almighty God Jesus say this, saying he is not good but only God is.
The context require an indefinite article at John 1:1
Therefore anyone believing Jesus is God by this teaching will be killed by the angelic destroyer,because they failed to give God worship that he alone is due and instead worsipped another god and violated his command he gave Moses.
That the whole purpose of this John 1-1 false teaching is to make sure those who follow this teaching will be lost forever.
You can come back with the list again or how I supposed to have mislead but my question will have to be answered,if you dont address it now it will be addressed for you and the outcome will be disasterous for you.