Adoption Rhode Island

Private, non-profit organization that helps find adoptive families for children living in state care. Information on adoption and the process of adopting children in the state, including a photo listing of available children in need of homes.

Artist Hunger Network

A grassroots network of local and national artists, individuals and organizations dedicated to ending hunger.

Historical Records Advisory Board

Mission to serve the people of the state by advocating, developing and supporting programs that defend and provide access to its documentary heritage.

Rhode Island 4H

Youth development program conducted by URI Cooperative Extension. News and information about the program, how to get involved, events, and competitions.

Rhode Island Community Food Bank

Nonprofit organization that provides and distributes food, offers nutrition training, and works to eliminate hunger in Rhode Island. Information on programs, volunteer opportunities, and related links. Part of the America's Second Harvest network.

Rhode Island Community Food Bank

Not-for-profit organization providing food for distribution, nutrition training, and public information to eliminate hunger in the area. Includes information on programs, volunteer opportunities, and links.

Rhode Island Forts

Short descriptions of the state's numerous military forts, batteries, harbor defenses, and garrisons, past and present.

Rhode Island Singles

Free ads placed by adults looking for love.

Rhode Island State 4-H

Rhode Island State Police: Amber Alert

Information about the state's early warning system to prevent child kidnappings.

nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

> John 1:1 can be
> translated "and the Word is a god" instead of "the Word was God".

There's tons of bad doctrine built on the premise that
some verse _can_ be translated in some way. Nobody here
denies that John 1:1 _can_ be translated that way. The
issue is whether it _ought_ to be translated that way.
And it clearly oughtn't. (I love saying "oughtn't".
And "mightn't".)

On the side of "oughtn't" is every scholar with enough
integrety to sign his work. On the side of "ought" is
only biased people.

You need (if you want to be at all logical and/or serious)
to justify why your "can" ought to be "ought".


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 <168.20.16.05.924606000@srcbs.org>, larswilson says...
>
>
>
>
> wrote in message
>news:168.26.08.05.884892000@srcbs.org...
>>
>>
>> larswilson wrote:
>>> The SYNTAX of this in modern concept
>>
>> If you feel you know your Greek well enough to post on syntax, the
>> perhaps you would care to explain for us why the Trinitarian is
>> required to have John use a definite article in Jn 1:1c.
>
>Regardless of the expertise in completely unstanding ancient koine Greek,

By promising not to regard the relevant expertise, you have guaranteed that the
rest of your post will be worthless.

Worse yet, you live up to your promise with shocking haste.

>I tihnk whatever John was saying about "a god", "god" or "the god" at
>Jn 1:1c must harmonize with his furhter definition in verse 18 as the
>"only begotten god in the bosom position of the Father."

Of course it must. But your reading does not. SO throw out your reading.

> Here Jesus'
>godship is being referred to again.

Yes, and that 'godship' is the same as the Father's. That is the point of John
1:1.

> Jesus as the "only begotten god" must
>be the same god of Jn 1:1c. Likewise when it says that Jesus was *with
>god*
>in Jn 1:1b and in the "bosom position of the Father" in verse 18, you have
>an more detail.

"an more detail"?

> That is, Christ is with god in hi bosom position.

"Bosom position"? What is THAT supposed to mean?

> By
>calling him
>"only begotten" establishes him as the "son of God"

Well, yes, but what IS your point?

> which is also his title.

He had many titles.


>So Greek experts can put any article they want on Jn 1:1c or leave it off

No.

>since if
>John wants to use "the god" to refer to both the Father and Son that