nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

> you are trying a
> smear campaign against me and JWs because your Biblical argument is
> vacuous and erroneous.

You're wrong. I'm smearing you for quite a different reason:
I'm showing you what your posts look like to those you smear.

Everybody sins. The difference with you is that you
won't confess yours.

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. )))

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 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.
>