matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:


>>So much for your logic.
>
> The pot calling the kettle black! Where is YOUR logic, Bart, in
> accusing him of "insisting that everyone has to be a coutnerexample"?
> Do you REALLY think it follows from "if God commands, the commandees
> are able to obey"? It does not, you know.

If you think you can impugn my logic, you'll have to learn to
read first. I was, in fact, arguing that "It does not."

There's no way that someone who can't even figure out
what I'm saying can begin to impugn my logic.

But note, now, that you agree with me that Gary's argument
that "God wouldn't command it unless the people were able
to obey" doesn't follow.

Bart

((( 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. )))

In article <095.54.20.05.073180000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>
>
>basicallyblues wrote:
>
>> 2. In translations, the important thing is consistancy. In
>> the NWT, most of the time the phrase here is translated "God".
>> EXCEPT in this verse, where it would quite inconvenient for
>> the JW's.
>>
>> see Acts 28:6 how does the Bible on your desk render this verse?
>>
>
>I'd like to deal with this in more depth, and I'll try to come back to
>this, but I'm really pressed for time the next day or so.
>
>However, in John 1:1, in the contested translation "and the Word was
>God", theos is in the nominative case.

True...

> This means, for example, that
>"God" is the _subject_ of this phrase and not "the Word".

Your phrasing is a little odd here. It is also important to remember that the
rule you just gave applies to finite transitive verbs only. For infinitives,
both subject and predicate (best not call it 'object') are normally accusative.
For finite intransitives, both subject and predicate are in the nominative case.
And this is what is relevant for this part of John 1:1: is QEOS subject or
predicate?

> "with God",
>followed by "God" as the _subject_, strongly (and, to me, conclusively)
>argues that it's the same as the God in the "with God". That is, if we
>said, "and the Word was with a god" then "and a god was the Word" would
>follow. But since it's "and the Word was with God" then "and God was
>the Word" is the correct translation.

It is the correct translation, but your analysis is still incomplete.

>In Acts 28:6, theos is in the accusative case (I'm doing this from
>memory, so forgive me if this isn't exact). This means that it's the
>