Coptic views dating updating sql server 2016
This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus and Hebrews 1:8-9. "But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint.Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. o` qeo.j h`mw/n IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Be Duhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr.Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This is not to say that Be Duhn is to be dismissed lightly.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.So, Barclay may have possibly been referring to the verse in its entirety, not merely the "a god" rendering. 3c below)." Although I disagree with BDAG in its attempt to explain away (that's what it is) the language of John using the account about Pythagoras (! Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. Be Duhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. Be Duhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of Be Duhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy.Or, more likely, he did not remember what he had said about the NWT some 20-odd years before. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates)." It is suspicious when an author tells us that a particular view is fundamental in "Mosaic...traditions" but then fails to quote Moses or anyone clearly in his tradition in support of the assertion. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w-n o`=`to whom belongs' was revived by JWeiss, D. ), since John's milieu is Jewish and his religious canon is the Old Testament, I note that BDAG acknowledges that in John QEOS "certainly refers to Christ." Do you agree? John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, Be Duhn suggests.
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.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.Ph 2:6 becomes Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12). Burnett, Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing.I am quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation. Be Duhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School.
Even if the claim is true, and Barclay knowingly lied, it is logically fallacious to claim this fact exonerates the WT from twisting its quote from him. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek.
When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its argumentation and in its scholarship.