[Kosh]

Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!

Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.

[Mars]

Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!

Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.

I suspect that was his point.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I just keep waiting for someone to turn up the lost first page containing the following:

This work is purely fictional.  All likenesses to any people living, dead, or resurrected contained here in are purely coincidental. 

[Pred the Penguin]

I think I've just lost a little bit more of my faith in humanity...

[Scotty]

You can go join Nuke in the club.

I had the (mis?)fortune of stumbling across this site while looking for debate evidence on NCLB.  It said something about how illegal immigrants will move into our suburbs and lower our standardized test scores, and that they were Teh Satanz.

That is flippin' hilarious though.

[jdjtcagle]

*facepalm*

Ironic therefore funny.  I have sincere doubts that conservapedia is legitimate, even if it is as a Christian it doesn't affect me.  These are people's opinions and frankly it's rooted in ignorance.

A thought I can see them trying to rewrite (presumably Solomon's) Ecclesiastes, throughout the whole thing it's written from someone who almost sounds like a skeptic, that is, until the end.  Even some Jewish scholars doubted the validity of the book.  It happens to be one of my favorites.

[MR_T3D]

its both SAD and Funny!
although it is sad to know that there are people whom will believe this book to be true, and I pity their souls

[jdjtcagle]

OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization.  While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.)  KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB.  Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.

Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite.  The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church.  An example would be John 1:1.  New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god.  Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God."  But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage. - Read a couple post down, I didn't remember this right.

[jdjtcagle]

Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!

Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.

Always found that tidbit of knowledge interesting. 

[StarSlayer]

I have a feeling if Jesus showed up today some of the radical Christian wingnuts would be the first in line to want to nail him back up on the cross.  I don't really think they are buying what he's selling

[General Battuta]

Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!

Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.

That was...exactly my point?

[Rian]

OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization.  While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.)  KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB.  Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.

Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite.  The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church.  An example would be John 1:1.  New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god.  Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God."  But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.

I think that the validity of existing translations is kind of beside the point, actually. These people aren’t approaching the project from a standpoint of linguistic or theological rigor, they’re literally changing the text to say what they think it should say. The existing translations may be flawed, but the changes proposed by this project can only take the text further away from the original. I don’t think you can give them a pass for their motives if their plan for "fixing" the Bible introduces even more inaccuracies.

[jdjtcagle]

OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization.  While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.)  KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB.  Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.

Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite.  The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church.  An example would be John 1:1.  New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god.  Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God."  But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.

I think that the validity of existing translations is kind of beside the point, actually. These people aren’t approaching the project from a standpoint of linguistic or theological rigor, they’re literally changing the text to say what they think it should say. The existing translations may be flawed, but the changes proposed by this project can only take the text further away from the original. I don’t think you can give them a pass for their motives if their plan for "fixing" the Bible introduces even more inaccuracies.

I tried to say in my post that they don't need to touch it.  I'm not clear sometimes but I did make a generalization.  Because you are right they will only bring it further from the truth.  But my linguistics rant was just that a rant not a justification.  They are only justified in questioning modern translations not rewriting their own.

The generalization I was talking about was they were attempting to rewrite the original text not a translation.  Sorry

[TESLA]

Not funny? It's freaking hilarious.

Peter Griffen? 

[Topgun]

I have a feeling if Jesus showed up today some of the radical Christian wingnuts would be the first in line to want to nail him back up on the cross.  I don't really think they are buying what he's selling

that is sooo true, like you don't even know how true that is.

[Topgun]

OK I had a little time and looked over it and realized that my biased towards that site caused me to make a hasty generalization.  While I think they need to leave it to biblical scholars they are entirely justified in questioning modern translations (not because they are liberal though, that doesn't make any sense.)  KJV while a very literal translation is far from perfect. I believe one the best is the NASB.  Probably one of the closest things to the original Greek as far as the NT is concerned.

Of course, the NIV was supposed to combat bias and did the opposite.  The truth is most versions of the bible are interpreted based on the doctrine of the church.  An example would be John 1:1.  New World translation which is used by Jehovah witnesses translate this verse to say that the "word was with God and the word was a god.  Getting rid of the Greeks definite Theos which is supposed to read "word was with God and the word (logos) was God."  But they believe that Jesus was a created diety and thus ingnore the Greek of this passage.

that isn't entirely true...
in greek the words are:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
theos meaning god;

ho meaning this, that, these, etc.

and logos meaning word.

there are many gods, but there is only one YHWH, so to differentiate, it was common in the time to use the word "the" before theos, when referring to YHWH, however the greek word for the is not present.

its like saying dirt is earth, do you mean dirt is the earth (the planet), or do you mean that dirt is is earth (soil)?

it also helps to remember that in the first century, Christians still used the hebrew name of God, Yahweh (can also be pronounced Jehovah). they didn't simply refer to God as god, because there where many gods worshiped at the time, and it could confuse the people they would preach to.

really it could be translated either way, but, seeing as how something can't be with something and be something, many, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, have translated it as "The word was with God and the word was a god".

[Topgun]

Wikipedia explains it better:

Grammar

A major point of contention, since the theos in question occurs without the definite article (the), within the grammatical debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule, set out by Greek scholar E.C. Colwell, which states:

    "In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."

At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. [15]

On the other hand Philip Harner commented [16]

    The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, "the Word was God." The New English Bible has, "what God was, the Word was." Good News for Modern Man has, "he was the same as God." The problem with all of these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.

By clause A Harner meant "that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable". So he concluded that

    "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Interestingly, Origen of Alexandria, who was a teacher in Greek grammar in the third century wrote about the use of the definite article here:[17]

    "We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God......The true God, then, is The God (ho theos)."

It might suggest that an ancient Greek reader could take the anarthrous noun theos applied to the Word as indefinite. The Coptic translators comtemporaries to Origen seemed to understand it in the same sense. For instance, The SAHIDIC COPTIC JOHN 1:1 says :

    Hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute Auw neunoute pe pshaje

A literal translation of the Sahidic Coptic:

    In the beginning existed the word And the word existed in the presence of the god And a god was the word

The Coptic noun "noute" means "god". Also, unlike the ancient Greek and latin the Sahidic Coptic language had an indefinite article. Here those translators used the definite article "p" for the first theos (as the Koine Greek does), but they used the indefinite article "u" before the second theos. Unlike the English language, this indefinite article may be also applied to mass nouns, which could not be translated into English. Accordingly, some have argued that "noute" in John 1:1c should be regarded as a mass noun, thus it would suggest that this noun should be taken as purely qualitative, rather than indefinite. So according to this view the translation should be "The Word was Divine". Nonetheless, others have argued that here "noute" is a count noun, thus the Coptic indefnite article is the same as the english indefinite article.

Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun "noute" in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as "a god." For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has "a god." Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives "a god" for the literal interlinear translation of "u.noute" in his grammar book, "Coptic in 20 Lessons," page 7. (Peeters, Leuven, 2007)

Coptic grammar does not apply the term "qualitative" to nouns. But it does recognize adjectival usage of nouns, in which case, if the context called for it, "u.noute" could be rendered into English as "divine." However, at John 1:1 in Coptic, we have a distinction between "p.noute," or "the god," i.e., "God" in English, and another entity, the Logos or Word (Shaje in Coptic) identified as "u.noute," or "a god." Whereas "divine" could fit here as a paraphrase, there is no contextual or grammatical reason to overlook the entirely proper literal translation, "a god."

[Kosh]

Yeah, because the Islamic states saved that knowledge. And look what happened to their scientific golden age!

Actually the old Islamic empires were once fairly open and tolerant societies, and were very welcoming of new knowledge. When the Christians were burning anything created by pagans, the muslims translated and preserved many of the original Greek writings. Unfortunately their golden age didn't last that long because fundementalism soon come out of its hole.

That was...exactly my point?

Sorry, misunderstood.

[jdjtcagle]

I'm sorry after going back and freshening up on this subject, your absolutely right there is no article the word Theos and is anarthrous.  It is not %100 proven grammatically that it is a definite theos but it is suggested and often the determinate is usually a church's doctrine. Which is the point of my post to question the translation.  I was in a hurry and couldn't remember if the Theos was anarthrous I thought it wasn't but it definitely is. They did not ignore the Greek as I stated earlier rather translated the verse according to their doctrine.

E. C. Colwell discovered that definite predicate nouns (in this case Theos) which precede the verb usually lack the article. Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.

A man named David Wallace who wrote (Greek Grammer Beyond the basics) pointed out that Colwell's rule alone is not enough to support the claim that it is definite. Colwell's rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this structure does not make the noun definite.  Wallace argues that it is not definite but qualitative emphasizing nature the word is of the same nature as God (Trinitarian.)

Wallace thinks that a definite theos indicates a ancient form of Modalism or Sabellianism which is a believe that Jesus is the same numerically as the Father.  I happen to believe that the scriptures teach just that.  Not just Wallace believed this but many other Greek scholars such as Westcott, A. T. Robertson, Lange, Chemnitz, Alford and even Martin Luther.

The problem with Wallace's view on qualitative Theos is that John had options to convey just that. He could have easily left theos anarthrous and still put it after the verb, thus retaining the qualitative sense that Wallace argues for. So it was not necessary to place it before the verb merely for that reason. The fact that he chose to put it before the verb and to the beginning of the phrase would seem to indicate emphasis (The Word WAS God.) I agree with Wallace, that Colwell’s rule does not prove a definite theos, but it most definitely supports it.

I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this.  The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later.  Anyway that one's free

Now the question is now what version of the bible do we use?  Well just as Jews and Gentiles did back then they had the Greek and it was clear for the 1st century church on how to interpret it.  I believe that what we must do now is KNOW where we stand and how to find the grammatical-historical interpretation of the bible and choose accordingly.  Contrary to how I may sound, I'm tolerant of Jehovah-Witness's I had a friend who I loved to debate with.  The problem is we could never decide what to argue about she always wanted to talk about Hell (which is very interesting, btw) and I wanted to talk about the Godhead (the state of being deity/God.)

In the end God is the judge and whatever you believe just be ready (and I use that with faith that your a rational being), unless you believe in a form of Calvinism, then... just wait.
That one's free too.

Verse 14
 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Topgun]

Sometimes especially in the past this rule is used to combat Arianism and Jehovah Witnesses stating that this must mean it's a definite theos.

Translating as the Jehovah's Witnesses have doesn't necessarily imply that the second term of Theos is definite, what implies it is the context.
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
logos en pros ton theon --------- word/logic was with god (accusative, definite, in other words specified)


kai theos en ho logos ------- and god (nominative, not definite) is this/the Word.

like saying: the commander is with (specified, or The) King, king (not specified, or a) this commander is.
is someone read this, it would be understood that the commander is a king, but not the king of the writer's country. or at least, a king in a difference sense.
mostly because it wouldn't make any sense to understand the text as:
the commander was with The King, The King was the commander.
the two phrases in the sentence contradict.

I believe that John held to his Monotheistic beliefs in One God when he wrote this.  The trinity was developed way later some 300 years later.  Anyway that one's free

im sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
are you saying that John didn't believe in a Trinity when he wrote this?