Dr paul dating os Unmoderated video chat

If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N. B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Joh 1,1 states at the very point of the Originating Expression this fact: That the Logos was in the Beginning; that is, at the creation of the world, he already was...

Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.)The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. V 1 does not speculate about pre-existent things, but declares: The world which we know (V 3) came about by the creative mediation of the Logos, who was with God already before the universe came to be" (Becker, Becker does see a hyper-subordination of the Logos to ho theos in John's Gospel, and says the Father and the Son are not of the same rank (German: Stufe).

It is an obvious example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. Be Duhn's Ph D from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages.

But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.

Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism."The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.

This verse starts with the phrase "Originally the Word was" (reflecting the wording of the 1950 Edition, later revised to the more familiar "In the beginning"). He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts.23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.

Leave a Reply