Mormon and Buddhism

[comfortmaster1]

Due to all the good responses in my athiest thread, I want to ask the following.
What do you all think about Mormons?
What do you think about the teachings of Buddhism?

[bootlen]

Both are cults.

[coolwhip]

I like Buddhism and its teachings.

[coordinatesales]

My sister, converted to Mormanism and so has my mother. There's some good stuff about it but some weird stuff too. When my sister got married, she was married in a temple in Arizona. My brother-in-law and his family grew up morman so they could enter to see the wedding as could my mother (she met the 2yr requirement) but nobody else on my side of the family even got to see the wedding. Bummer. They did it in the temple because that would mean they are married forever, not just on earth but in heaven as well. That directly contradicts what Jesus said about marriage in heaven so that is issue #1. Lots of others, maybe we'll get into those as well.

[bootlen]

My sister, converted to Mormanism and so has my mother. There's some good stuff about it but some weird stuff too. When my sister got married, she was married in a temple in Arizona. My brother-in-law and his family grew up morman so they could enter to see the wedding as could my mother (she met the 2yr requirement) but nobody else on my side of the family even got to see the wedding. Bummer. They did it in the temple because that would mean they are married forever, not just on earth but in heaven as well. That directly contradicts what Jesus said about marriage in heaven so that is issue #1. Lots of others, maybe we'll get into those as well.

A primary issue is Christ's deity. They claim He is not God...a direct contradiction to Scripture, just for starters, John 1.

[sysint]

Both are cults.
Here's a definition of a cult:
In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. Wiki

You "born again" types are actually much smaller in numbers to the religion of Buddhism, so by comparison your religion is actually the cult. Also, Buddhism is older than Christianity so Christianity was a cult to Buddhists.

The "born again" types also seem to swear their allegiance to the KJV Bible in particular, which would be a "novel belief system" or "idosyncratic practice".

[sysint]

A primary issue is Christ's deity. They claim He is not God...a direct contradiction to Scripture, just for starters, John 1.

You would have to actually understand John 1 first. Then just read John 1:18, or numerous other scriptures in John that directly contradict your assumption....

[bootlen]

You would have to actually understand John 1 first. Then just read John 1:18, or numerous other scriptures in John that directly contradict your assumption....


Thanks for pointing that out. John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side." The only logical conclusion from that with the previous 17 verses is that Jesus is God.

[bootlen]

Here's a definition of a cult:
In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. Wiki

You "born again" types are actually much smaller in numbers to the religion of Buddhism, so by comparison your religion is actually the cult. Also, Buddhism is older than Christianity so Christianity was a cult to Buddhists.

The "born again" types also seem to swear their allegiance to the KJV Bible in particular, which would be a "novel belief system" or "idosyncratic practice".

I agree...that is a definition of a cult.

You have a point?

[glennac]

Here's a definition of a cult:
In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. Wiki

You "born again" types are actually much smaller in numbers to the religion of Buddhism, so by comparison your religion is actually the cult. Also, Buddhism is older than Christianity so Christianity was a cult to Buddhists.

The "born again" types also seem to swear their allegiance to the KJV Bible in particular, which would be a "novel belief system" or "idosyncratic practice".


Sin, that is “a” definition well I don’t know where you found it but the popular belief around here is that it describes a religion which is not only bizarre in their practices and beliefs but also practice a form of “mind control of their members” to discourage them from leaving the flock and to be 100% supporters of their agenda. The Mormons do have some of these traits. If you leave the church you are banned and other members have to shun you. The Muslims with their practice of praying 5 times a day every day and you could be killed if you left and join another religion should qualify. “Born again and Fundamentalists” don’t meet those requirements.:cool: :cool:

[sysint]

Thanks for pointing that out. John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side." The only logical conclusion from that with the previous 17 verses is that Jesus is God.

Now that's funny from you.... don't you want to use your KJV?

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. KJV

John 1:18God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare. Youngs Literal Translation

begotten
adj : (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten
child"


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [imp. Begot, (Archaic) Begat; p. p.
Begot, Begotten; p. pr. & vb. n. Begetting.] [OE.
bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
commonly said of the father.

Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
--Milton.

2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.

3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.

Love is begot by fancy. --Granville.

Begotten \Be*got"ten\,
p. p. of Beget.

Not God. Begotten from God. Very simple and straightforward.

[sysint]

If you leave the church you are banned and other members have to shun you.

That's biblical. Catholics excommunicate. In the US you can be convicted of treason or you could renounce your citizenship. Both carry ramifications. Your point?

"The Mormons do have some of these traits." - Catholic and other religions have guys running around in "dresses", kissing their rings, wearing big hats, etc....

[sysint]

More with John:

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

9Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. (at one time Jesus didn't have everything)

4:34Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (sent by God, not God)

5:9 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

5:18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. 19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (The Jews thought he was making himself a god like the Father.)

5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (this is a killer statement--- Jesus didn't have life in himself until God gave it to him) or as the NIV states: 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

5:27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also-- (another thing God gave Jesus he didn't have at one time)

5:30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

..... no need to go much further. John clearly indcates the position of Jesus as God's only begotten son, that Jesus has life in himself because God gave it to him, not because he is God.

Also, that Jesus has his own will separate from the Father.

EDIT Actually, how about John 14:28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. KJV

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. NIV

.... back to the drawing board I guess.

[bootlen]

Now that's funny from you.... don't you want to use your KJV?

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. KJV

John 1:18God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare. Youngs Literal Translation

begotten
adj : (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten
child"


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [imp. Begot, (Archaic) Begat; p. p.
Begot, Begotten; p. pr. & vb. n. Begetting.] [OE.
bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
commonly said of the father.

Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
--Milton.

2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.

3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.

Love is begot by fancy. --Granville.

Begotten \Be*got"ten\,
p. p. of Beget.

Not God. Begotten from God. Very simple and straightforward.

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not a "KJV'er only".

And thanks for pointing out "begotten". That means Jesus had God's righteous, sinless blood flowing through Him.

[bootlen]

If you leave the church you are banned and other members have to shun you.

That's biblical. Catholics excommunicate. In the US you can be convicted of treason or you could renounce your citizenship. Both carry ramifications. Your point?

"The Mormons do have some of these traits." - Catholic and other religions have guys running around in "dresses", kissing their rings, wearing big hats, etc....

No, disfellowship for leaving the church (whatever that means) it is not Biblical. To disfellowship for unrepentant sin is Biblical.

[bootlen]

More with John:

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

9Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. (at one time Jesus didn't have everything)

4:34Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (sent by God, not God)

5:9 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

5:18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. 19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (The Jews thought he was making himself a god like the Father.)

5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (this is a killer statement--- Jesus didn't have life in himself until God gave it to him) or as the NIV states: 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

5:27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also-- (another thing God gave Jesus he didn't have at one time)

5:30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

..... no need to go much further. John clearly indcates the position of Jesus as God's only begotten son, that Jesus has life in himself because God gave it to him, not because he is God.

Also, that Jesus has his own will separate from the Father.

EDIT Actually, how about John 14:28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. KJV

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. NIV

.... back to the drawing board I guess.

Nope. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

[sysint]

No, disfellowship for leaving the church (whatever that means) it is not Biblical. To disfellowship for unrepentant sin is Biblical.
Depends on how/why you leave. I guess more information is needed.

"If you leave the church you are banned and other members have to shun you."

[sysint]

Nope. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

Show me all those made up phrases in the Bible. It's mere contrivance of doctrine. You get "Son of God" but not "God the Son". That's dreaming.


And thanks for pointing out "begotten". That means Jesus had God's righteous, sinless blood flowing through Him. Isn't that a stretch..... it points out Jesus was begotten. That's what it actually says. No mystery definition there like you are trying to make.

[bootlen]

'Splain to me, sys, John 1:1 from the O.G,

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word."

Followed by John 1:14,

"And the Word flesh became and tabernacled among us, and we beheld the glory of Him, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full grace and of truth."

For someone who is "not a Mormon", you sure do get entangled with these Mormon threads. True colors?

[coolwhip]

Zzzzzzzz:rolleyes:

[sysint]

'Splain to me, sys, John 1:1 from the O.G,
"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word."
Followed by John 1:14,
"And the Word flesh became and tabernacled among us, and we beheld the glory of Him, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full grace and of truth."

For someone who is "not a Mormon", you sure do get entangled with these Mormon threads. True colors? First, there is no word "a" or "an" in Greek. When you see "ho" in front of the noun as ho theos or ho logos you get "the god" or "the word" instead of what we would understand as "a god" or "a word".

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with(ho theos or "the God") God, and the Word was (no "ho theos" so it's "a God")God.
2The same was in the beginning with (ho theos "the God")God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made KJV

IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and
the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him nothing came to be. -Goodspeed

The Logos existed in the very beginning,the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine. He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. -Moffatt

You could translate it "the Word was "a" god". Moffatt and Goodspeed see it as qualitative, so they describe it as "divine".

John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given him, such honor as an only son receives from his father. -Goodspeed

If you look at your KJV in Luke 20:38 --For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Here you have it rendered "a God". But the KJV doesn't do that in John 1:1 under the same condition. Conversely, looking at Mark 12:27 you see -- 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err -- For some reason the KJV goes the other way.

Other Bibles say "he is not God of the dead" to get around the use of "the" or "a".

Anyway, KJV isn't consistent about the translation.

[bootlen]

First, there is no word "a" or "an" in Greek. When you see "ho" in front of the noun as ho theos or ho logos you get "the god" or "the word" instead of what we would understand as "a god" or "a word".

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with(ho theos or "the God") God, and the Word was (no "ho theos" so it's "a God")God.

So you are saying if a word is not there, it is understood as being there? Are you totally daft or just partially?


IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and
the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him nothing came to be. -Goodspeed

The Logos existed in the very beginning,the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine. He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. -Moffatt

You could translate it "the Word was "a" god". Moffatt and Goodspeed see it as qualitative, so they describe it as "divine".

Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt.

Heck. So much for you as well.

[sysint]

So you are saying if a word is not there, it is understood as being there? Are you totally daft or just partially?
So much for your comprehension problem. The KJV makes the same decisions when they want to. You need to read my answer again. Greek doesn't have an indefinite article so in John 1 if you want to use English it's added. Where theos refers to the Father it has a "the" in front of it. Where theos is used with the word it has no "the". The thought is different.

"Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt." No, oak leaf would be out.

1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
1:2 ΠΑΙ ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ϨΑΤΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ.
In the beginning this one existed with God.
--Coptic Translation

The Coptic Translation was done when this Greek was still being used and before the 4th Century Trinitarians came to be. At any rate, they would be better qualified to make the right decision on definite and indefinite articles. I know this is way beyond you because I'm not talking nouns like "leaf" but definite and indefinite articles. Greek didn't have both, but Coptic did.

If you look at John 1:1 (3rd part) it would go: and a god was the Word.
In the Greek: and god was the Word. (but not THE god)

Anyway, you have a much simpler problem with the verse. By your reasoning you cannot differentiate (by rule) when theos would be talking about what you would term "God the Father" or "God the Son" without using context. However, with John 1:1 you want to dispell context and grammar.

If John wanted the Word to be God, he would have stated "ho theos" like he did in the first half of the verse. He didn't, and that's why concerning the Word, it isn't "the God", but only "a" god. Otherwise it would read and THE god was the Word.... but it doesn't, because the Word isn't THE God.

[Richard Kletty]

Both are cults.

Ever read "The Godmakers?"

Very interesting...

[Richard Kletty]

'Splain to me, sys, John 1:1 from the O.G,

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word."

Followed by John 1:14,

"And the Word flesh became and tabernacled among us, and we beheld the glory of Him, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full grace and of truth."

For someone who is "not a Mormon", you sure do get entangled with these Mormon threads. True colors?

No brother he is a witness...

[Richard Kletty]

First, there is no word "a" or "an" in Greek. When you see "ho" in front of the noun as ho theos or ho logos you get "the god" or "the word" instead of what we would understand as "a god" or "a word".

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with(ho theos or "the God") God, and the Word was (no "ho theos" so it's "a God")God.

So you are saying if a word is not there, it is understood as being there? Are you totally daft or just partially?


IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and
the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him nothing came to be. -Goodspeed

The Logos existed in the very beginning,the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine. He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. -Moffatt

You could translate it "the Word was "a" god". Moffatt and Goodspeed see it as qualitative, so they describe it as "divine".

Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt.

Heck. So much for you as well.

You nailed it. Good job...

[Richard Kletty]

So you are saying if a word is not there, it is understood as being there? Are you totally daft or just partially?
So much for your comprehension problem. The KJV makes the same decisions when they want to. You need to read my answer again. Greek doesn't have an indefinite article so in John 1 if you want to use English it's added. Where theos refers to the Father it has a "the" in front of it. Where theos is used with the word it has no "the". The thought is different.

"Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt." No, oak leaf would be out.

1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
1:2 ΠΑΙ ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ϨΑΤΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ.
In the beginning this one existed with God.
--Coptic Translation

The Coptic Translation was done when this Greek was still being used and before the 4th Century Trinitarians came to be. At any rate, they would be better qualified to make the right decision on definite and indefinite articles. I know this is way beyond you because I'm not talking nouns like "leaf" but definite and indefinite articles. Greek didn't have both, but Coptic did.

If you look at John 1:1 (3rd part) it would go: and a god was the Word.
In the Greek: and god was the Word. (but not THE god)

Anyway, you have a much simpler problem with the verse. By your reasoning you cannot differentiate (by rule) when theos would be talking about what you would term "God the Father" or "God the Son" without using context. However, with John 1:1 you want to dispell context and grammar.

If John wanted the Word to be God, he would have stated "ho theos" like he did in the first half of the verse. He didn't, and that's why concerning the Word, it isn't "the God", but only "a" god. Otherwise it would read and THE god was the Word.... but it doesn't, because the Word isn't THE God.


All of what you have typed here is the nice apologetics you've been taught by your church. Im glad you believe in Him really I am but your translators are wrong as has been pointed out above.

[bootlen]

So you are saying if a word is not there, it is understood as being there? Are you totally daft or just partially?
So much for your comprehension problem. The KJV makes the same decisions when they want to. You need to read my answer again. Greek doesn't have an indefinite article so in John 1 if you want to use English it's added. Where theos refers to the Father it has a "the" in front of it. Where theos is used with the word it has no "the". The thought is different.

"Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt." No, oak leaf would be out.

1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
1:2 ΠΑΙ ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ϨΑΤΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ.
In the beginning this one existed with God.
--Coptic Translation

The Coptic Translation was done when this Greek was still being used and before the 4th Century Trinitarians came to be. At any rate, they would be better qualified to make the right decision on definite and indefinite articles. I know this is way beyond you because I'm not talking nouns like "leaf" but definite and indefinite articles. Greek didn't have both, but Coptic did.

If you look at John 1:1 (3rd part) it would go: and a god was the Word.
In the Greek: and god was the Word. (but not THE god)

Anyway, you have a much simpler problem with the verse. By your reasoning you cannot differentiate (by rule) when theos would be talking about what you would term "God the Father" or "God the Son" without using context. However, with John 1:1 you want to dispell context and grammar.

If John wanted the Word to be God, he would have stated "ho theos" like he did in the first half of the verse. He didn't, and that's why concerning the Word, it isn't "the God", but only "a" god. Otherwise it would read and THE god was the Word.... but it doesn't, because the Word isn't THE God.

The article "a" was added by JW "translators", whom you apparently believe. (You can 'fess up on your JWism, now). And there is not one single Greek or Hebrew scholar on the JW translation board.

[bootlen]

No brother he is a witness...

Yes. My bad. He claims to have to connection with the JW's but he believes everything they teach.

[sysint]

Mormons, Unitarians, JW's and others don't believe in the Trinity.

I'm showing you grammar. You don't like the grammar it's your problem. Why you accept the "dream" Trinity is your problem.

My information used here isn't from any JW based literature.

You can however find some of the information I provided from BeDuhn and Harner in addition to others.

What you born again JW haters have to do it get out and experience what the world has to say on these topics rather than sit on your cloistered fundalmentalist backsides. You offer nothing of substance, instead attempting personal attacks because you both have nothing.

EDIT: Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt.
To correct you again, it's "ho theos" in the first part of the verse and not in the latter... So you are incorrect in your reasoning by omission. The latter part of the verse goes "kai theos en ho logos" or "and god was the word". There "god" is indefinite, therefore "a" god. The beginning part of the verse is "ho theos" or THE GOD. That's definite. That's the grammar that you are hanging your Trinitarian concepts on - which even educated Trinitarians won't do.

The article "a" was added by JW "translators", whom you apparently believe. (You can 'fess up on your JWism, now). And there is not one single Greek or Hebrew scholar on the JW translation board. --- So does the KJV in other verses. Either way, I could care less. I'm not using the JW Bible. I quoted the Coptic version. Got something against them too?

I used KJV's use of the indefinite article and apparently you two fundalmentalists ignore that.

Then you attempt to discredit Moffatt and Goodspeed.

What you bean brains need to do is provide something of substance.

[bootlen]

I'm showing you grammar. You don't like the grammar it's your problem.

And poor grammar at best.

[sysint]

Prove it. Come back with anything of substance. It seems you don't even understand the difference between indefinite and definite articles. You have no concept.

Even though the KJV uses indefinite articles even concerning theos you just simply gloss over it.

Very cult-like behavior not being able to research, reason and defend your position.

And, again you reply with nothing.

[bootlen]

Prove it. Come back with anything of substance. It seems you don't even understand the difference between indefinite and definite articles. You have no concept.

Even though the KJV uses indefinite articles even concerning theos you just simply gloss over it.

Very cult-like behavior not being able to research, reason and defend your position.

And, again you reply with nothing.

Well, sys, when someone is wrong and refuse to see truth, I just gloss over them. That's the way it is.

[Richard Kletty]

Prove it. Come back with anything of substance. It seems you don't even understand the difference between indefinite and definite articles. You have no concept.

Even though the KJV uses indefinite articles even concerning theos you just simply gloss over it.

Very cult-like behavior not being able to research, reason and defend your position.

And, again you reply with nothing.

First, he already did prove it. THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE GREEK TEXT. The JW's added it to confirm their beliefs. Boot is correct that no Hebrew or Greek was in on the translation. I have been told by JW's that "only the best Greek Scholars translated your Bible" Yet none was Greek. Look I dont want to seem like Im bashing JW's because I respect you for what you believe. I have these convos all the time with my Chiropractor who is a JW.

Second, who said anything about the KJV being perfect? I cetainly didnt. I actually can think of no version that is without error. However, the fact remains that the capitalized text above holds true. There is no definite article in the Greek text.

Im going to agree to disagree with you because I know we'll all find out in the end. I hope we're all wrong but because of our faiths we are accounted as righteous and that because of grace we'll all see each other there and laugh about how we talked about this on HVAC-Talk... meanwhile we'll all be face down in worship.

[sysint]

There is no indefinite article in Greek. It helps when you know what you are reading.

The writer made a point of referring to ho theos (THE GOD) when referring to the "Father" and also made a point of referring to ho logos (THE WORD) as simply theos, or indefinite.

And again, since you can't seem to get it in your head, I'm not using any JW Bible or JW literature. Time to bury that lame excuse and simply accept the fact you don't have anything in the way of substance to contribute.

"Well, sys, when someone is wrong and refuse to see truth, I just gloss over them. That's the way it is." -- I think you know you have nothing.

[bootlen]

There is no indefinite article in Greek. It helps when you know what you are reading.

The writer made a point of referring to ho theos (THE GOD) when referring to the "Father" and also made a point of referring to ho logos (THE WORD) as simply theos, or indefinite.

And again, since you can't seem to get it in your head, I'm not using any JW Bible or JW literature. Time to bury that lame excuse and simply accept the fact you don't have anything in the way of substance to contribute.

"Well, sys, when someone is wrong and refuse to see truth, I just gloss over them. That's the way it is." -- I think you know you have nothing.

We don't refer to you as "a sys" or "the sys" either or to myself as "a bootlen" or "the bootlen" because it is name or a handle, as it were. Neither a definite nor an indefinite article would be appropo. Same true of the passage at issue.

Good freakin' greif, yer grabbing at straws.

[sysint]

We don't refer to you as "a sys" or "the sys" either or to myself as "a bootlen" or "the bootlen" because it is name or a handle, as it were. Neither a definite nor an indefinite article would be appropo. Same true of the passage at issue.

Good freakin' greif, yer grabbing at straws.God isn't a proper name. Hence, your problem of bad reasoning.

Good freakin' grief, you are grabbing at straws.

EDIT: Here's making it even simpler. Definite article logos and theos defined with a PROPER name, and the indefinite article theos left as is:

In the beginning existed Jesus, and Jesus existed with Yahweh, and Jesus was god. In the beginning Jesus existed with God.

Jesus was WITH god but not Yahweh but "a" god (indefinite) as Moffatt, Goodspeed, and the Coptic translation have understood for a long time, the Coptic translation being very old when Koine Greek was still currently spoken and understood.

If you tell me you want to take the phrase Jesus was god and make it definite it would be Jesus was Yahweh, which is completely stupid and your Trinitarian belief doesn't support that thought. You want to make theos whatever your doctrine supports and not what the verse actually states. You open the door to all sorts of things when you say theos is ONLY the Father at some times and not at others. (try to actually think about this before the dumb response.)

[bootlen]

God isn't a proper name. Hence, your problem of bad reasoning.

Good freakin' grief, you are grabbing at straws.

Oh, well, thank you for bringing me and the rest of the English speaking world up to date after, what, some 1500 years.

[bootlen]

Hey! All you Greek scholars out there! You guys need to pay attention to this here guy, the sysint. He knows more about Greek than you.

[sysint]

Hey! All you Greek scholars out there! You guys need to pay attention to this here guy, the sysint. He knows more about Greek than you.

Acts 4:13Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Oh, well, thank you for bringing me and the rest of the English speaking world up to date after, what, some 1500 years. Actually, we are talking Greek of the day. The Coptic translation is over 1700 years old and they got it right. Why did many others change a few hundred years later that affected many English translations?

[Richard Kletty]

Time to bury that lame excuse and simply accept the fact you don't have anything in the way of substance to contribute.


Here is the substance I will contribute:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word "was" God.

Thats all the substance I need.

I shall no longer debate the facts with you.

Blessings...

[desto1]

sysint,i recommend you get a strongs concordance if you want to debate the greek or hebrew translations, the kjv of the bible was translated in 17th century grammar,in which some of the phrasings and comman words have different meanings compared to 20th century english.i suggest looking up definitions in a greek and hebrew concordance verses a regular dictionary.myself,i preffer the nkjv translation.for me its easier to understand than the kjv,and i will state that only JESUS is the true way,truth and life!!!

[sysint]

sysint,i recommend you get a strongs concordance if you want to debate the greek or hebrew translations, the kjv of the bible was translated in 17th century grammar,in which some of the phrasings and comman words have different meanings compared to 20th century english.i suggest looking up definitions in a greek and hebrew concordance verses a regular dictionary.myself,i preffer the nkjv translation.for me its easier to understand than the kjv,and i will state that only JESUS is the true way,truth and life!!!
Got that. And Vines Expository.
Your NKJV isn't really a KJV. --- which is why some have a problem with it.
John 1:3 is one of those issues for some:

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. NKJV

.....as opposed to the KJV:

Personally, I think the NKJV is more accurate with this verse, especially since it shows that all things were made through Jesus and not really by Jesus, supporting a different view of John 1:1 than people would have you believe.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[sysint]

Yeah. I could translate it as "oak leaf", too. But I'd be wrong doing that, too. The same word "Theos" is in both places which, properly translated, means God. So much for Goodspeed and Moffatt.

So, theos is always God meaning the Trinity or a part of the Trinity? (this is a smiple yes/no for you)

How do you distinguish when theos is the Father or theos is the Son?
Where in the Bible does it call the Holy Ghost theos?


1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[bootlen]

Everything you post on Scripture is contrary to Bible scholars, Greek scholars, Hebrew scholars, English scholars, and plain ol' common sense.

I'm with Kletty. Adios.

[bootlen]

Hey, Kletty. Have you noticed why the Jews wanted Jesus crucified? Because they said he claimed to be God. Now, if He was not God, that means He was either lying or deluded. Either scenario would exclude Him from being a "good man" or "good prophet". Either way, He had the Jews riled enough that they thought He was sane but lying. And they EXPERIENCED Him.

BTW, I went back and put the word "a" before God throughout the NT where there was no definite article. Talk about gibberish when taken in context. It was laughable.

[bootlen]

Take a look at John 5:18, Kletty. I guess the Jews didn't want Jesus to claim to be "A" God. Musta been a pretty bad guy, huh?

[sysint]

So, theos is always God meaning the Trinity or a part of the Trinity? (this is a smiple yes/no for you)
How do you distinguish when theos is the Father or theos is the Son?
Where in the Bible does it call the Holy Ghost theos?

I know it's alot for you because it exposes your faulty foundation.

18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

"Because they said he claimed to be God."--He didn't say he was God. You have a reading problem. He called God his father which the Jews interpreted as him saying he was godlike, or as Moffatt and Goodspeed state: Divine.

Your complete lack of comprehension is shining through.


EDIT: "Everything you post on Scripture is contrary to Bible scholars, Greek scholars, Hebrew scholars, English scholars, and plain ol' common sense." Apparently not because I've quoted some and given out their names. Again, your lack of comprehension is shining through.