Is Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?

Is Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?

Dave
Dave

January 4th, 2017, 5:01 am #1

Dr. John Bechtle
Adjunct Professor
Degrees:
D.Min., NT Greek Instruction
M.Div., New Testament
Teaches Greek Language

Should John 1:1 be translated, “The Word was God” or “The Word was a god”? Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar: There is no such word as “a” or “an” in Greek, so we sometimes have to add “a” to translate into English, (Acts 28:6). The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology. The Greek word “the” is often attached to the word “God” or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + “the” (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God - “the” (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a “the” in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains: John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two. Is this the proper translation? No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says “God” the first time and “god” the second time. The context overrules their rule. Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”? To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.” Author: Dr. John Bechtle

Dr. Bechtle is either a Calvinist, a Trinity teacher, or what Donnie?

But Donnie and Ken, the REAL question is.....are you two just a closet Jehovah Witness?


Take your time boys. He is probably from a denominational background, or a Calvinist, or with Trinity background. One thing I know is this. Donnie, he put your work to and end. You are the ONE who has not been truthful.

Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 4th, 2017, 7:11 am #2

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Nice try, Dave.

Your fallacious analogy is this: Since the Roman Catholic Church, with its papacy, invented and teaches the pagan-influenced Trinity Creed, and Protestant Churches and Dave believe in the Catholic dogma, then, the Protestant Churches are also the Roman Catholic Church and Dave is a Roman Catholic. See the fallacy of your accusation?

1. I have no idea where the Greek professor derived his N.T. Greek text of John 1:1. I've already explained this numerous times that the original text (without the English capitalization) is as follows: "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god.""

The expression the god in the 2nd clause IS IN THE TEXT. That refers to God the Father [as in "the God of Abraham ... Isaac ... Jacob"]. The 3rd clause does not have the definite article "the" in the N.T. GREEK TEXT. Thanks to the Greek text! That "the Word" is NOT "the God."

2. John 1:2 is correctly translated: "The same was in the beginning with God." At least, Trinitarian translators did not substitute "He" or "Him" for "the Word."

3. In the following 3 verses Trinitarian translators "genderized" "the Word" by using "he" or "him" instead of "the same."

4. I have no idea where the Greek professor derived his N.T. Greek text of John 1:18 -- "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The KJV translation is fine in that regard. So, why is the Greek professor complaining about that?
[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 4th, 2017, 1:37 pm #3

Maybe a better title:

Rather than "Are Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?"

"Are Donnie and Ken just Jehovah's Witnesses in Disguise?" or

"Is Donnie-and-Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?"

Wouldn't these be better grammar?

"Donnie and Ken" is plural nominative. So you would need a verb to carry the plural.

"Donnie-and-Ken" is singular. "Donnie-and-Ken" make them a singular entity so the singular verb will carry it.

However, Donnie and Ken are not singular in their points of view, because they use different knowledge bases.

So I would opt for "Are Donnie and Ken just Jehovah's Witnesses in Disguise?"

Maybe Dr. Bill can stop attacking them, and help with the English construction.

Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 4th, 2017, 2:32 pm #4

I missed out on grammar 101a so I protect myself by cutting and pasting. At least I can read the punch line:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only BEGOTTEN OF the Father,) full of GRACE and TRUTH (the Word).

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth [Thy Word] came by Jesus Christ.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten SON,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath DECLARED him.

Jesus is the GRACE of God (not the 3 graces of ugliness) but GRACE or LIGHT are not separate god people.
The Word AND Grace AND Light and all we need is by the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON which they could see, hear and handle because, says Jesus, a spirit hath not flesh and bones.

Titus 2:11 For the GRACE of God that bringeth salvation HATH APPEARED all men,
Titus 2:12 TEACHING us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of
the great God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on January 4th, 2017, 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 4th, 2017, 2:46 pm #5

Maybe a better title:

Rather than "Are Donnie and Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?"

"Are Donnie and Ken just Jehovah's Witnesses in Disguise?" or

"Is Donnie-and-Ken just a Jehovah's Witness in Disguise?"

Wouldn't these be better grammar?

"Donnie and Ken" is plural nominative. So you would need a verb to carry the plural.

"Donnie-and-Ken" is singular. "Donnie-and-Ken" make them a singular entity so the singular verb will carry it.

However, Donnie and Ken are not singular in their points of view, because they use different knowledge bases.

So I would opt for "Are Donnie and Ken just Jehovah's Witnesses in Disguise?"

Maybe Dr. Bill can stop attacking them, and help with the English construction.
There's a vast difference between being "attacked" and being "challenged." It's natural for overly sensitive religious fanatics to imagine themselves as martyrs and "attacked" when others challenge their peculiar and controversial theology.

Let not Donnie and Ken boast too much that they "quote the Scripture" (to suit their own agenda), because Satan can also "quote the Scripture" even better than those two can.

The grammatically correct title for Dave's post would be "Are Donnie and Ken Just Jehovah's Witnesses in Disguise?"
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 4th, 2017, 3:01 pm #6

" because Satan can also "quote the Scripture" even better than those two can. " Quoteth Shakespeare
Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

January 4th, 2017, 4:22 pm #7

Proverbs 14:12New King James Version (NKJV)

12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
New King James Version (NKJV)


Thanks for the help with the grammar guys. Actually I asked an english teacher (family) if it looked right. I was told that I would get some odd "looks"s but since I used "Is" I therfore put both/either Donnie and/or Ken to be in the distinctive singular position of A Jehovah's witness.

Nice try boys and thanks for the help.

Donnie, are you a Greek Language teacher?

Than is why 'you have no idea' of where he got this info.

Not that I don't trust you on your word andstudy alone, but you have been proven to be a false teacher before.
Quote
Share

Sarge
Sarge

January 4th, 2017, 5:23 pm #8

" because Satan can also "quote the Scripture" even better than those two can. " Quoteth Shakespeare

May the best "person" whin(sic)







Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 4th, 2017, 5:37 pm #9

Thanks! I always knew that you were a QUACK doctor!
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

January 4th, 2017, 6:58 pm #10


May the best "person" whin(sic)







Yes, the duck is the doctor's mascot.
Quote
Share