F Erbeznik wrote:
> Jesus said in John 14:15.."you will obey what I command" and in
> 14:23.."he will obey my teaching". What command and what teaching
was
> Jesus referring to?

I bet that if one sat down and read the whole gospel of John from start
to finish the answers would become quite obvious. As, frequently, the
meaning of the monologues and dialogues become clear when quotes from
them are put into the context of the story that the author is telling.

For example, the meaning of a quote like, "Grandmother, what big eyes
you have!",
becomes quite clear when one reads the whole story.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

basicallyblues wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> >So what? Acts 28:6 is not John 1:1 -- the Greek is different in each
> >verse.
>
> What makes them similar is that qeovn in both cases has no definite
> article "ho"

Sure. But there is more going on in these passages than the lack of the
definite article.

>
> Why would you insert an "a" at Acts 28:6? Greek had no indefinite
> article. Why not just say: "they changed their minds and to say that he
> was God"?

Because that isn't how Greek nouns work. When the Greek uses the
article, it means identity. "o nomos" is "the Law". When the Greek
omits the article, it means quality of character. So "nomos", by
itself, means "any law" or "a law" or "law method".

So the translation 'to say that he was God' uses identity where quality
of character is meant. The correct translation would be 'a god' or
'godlike'.

>
> John 1:1 En ajrch/ h\n oJ lovgo, kai; oJ lovgo h\n pro; to;n
> qeovn, kai; qeo; h\n oJ lovgo
>
> .At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos (god).
> The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was
> ("and the Word [logos] was with God [a form of theos]"). This first
> the·osī is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek
> definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case
> Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

I agree.

>
> On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John
> 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word."
> Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos (a
> predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god."

Is is not incorrect to translate it as "the Word was divine". It was
one of the choices I mentioned several articles back.

[...]

>
> Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the pr