Peacefullove:



Stop telling lies. you didn't read the Wikipedia page

If you do, you won't be asking that question at bold

The Wikipedia page says:



The rendering as "a god" is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction'[35] "The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. "[Ac. 28:6 NIV].


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1


That page went ahead to include many bible versions that added ' a ' at John 1 vs 1.

So until you are able to defend why " a " was added at Act 28 vs 6. Your opinion lacks merit

There is no merit in your argument. The reason for having 'a god' rather than just God, is nothing but religious bias. There is no 'a' anywhere in the original Greek text, so why add it?. Wouldn't that change the meaning?. The quiestion is, why did you guys change the lettering?. To suit what?. Your creed and believe. Go and translate the Greek word, word for word and see what you'll get. Stop lying here. How does that sound in your ears?. And the word was a god?. Stop the lies please.

Primesky:


Mr OneJ stop twisting the truth here please. The original Greek text doesn't have that article 'a' in it. Different languages and translators add it to make sense in there own language but it destroys the meaning and intent. Do you ever use context in your speech and wrighting?. You're saying because acts 28 vs 6 has the same grammatical construct, therefore it must be the same thing. But clearly they not!.

Apart from the JWs, there are other religions which do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God let alone God. So having other interpretation and version makes no sense to me. I had thought you guys were Christians before but I was wrong. A totally different religion built on lies and deceit and you aren't even aware of it. I will not argue with you like this anymore since I now know what you guys do and what you represent. I have always had a false knowledge of JWs. I know you guys and not telling the absolute truth but not like I have seen. You can twist and lie to defend your position.

I will hence forth be posting the lies and deceit of this cult. Not for hatred or anything like that, but for your own benefit. Some of you don't even know what you are into.

From those who have been with you and those who have extensive research of your falsehood. I wish you would be humble enough to read the materials.

For the fact that my own words and point here are being deliberately twisted and misinterpreted means we will never make head way. I want you guys to disprove the lies your religion teaches you. Please be honest. Thank you.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5719164060696576/jehovahs-witnesses-taught-lie-but-then-lie-about-lying

Your lie lie too much. If "a god" never changed or "destroy the meaning & intent" of Acts 28:6 neither would "a god" in John 1:1 change anything. BTW,why are U still dodging the question: In English, does "god" in the manuscript mean the same thing as "God" which is not in the manuscript?
Besides, your claim "you're saying because Acts28:6 has the same grammatical construct, therefore, it must be the same thing." That's the honest, professional conclusion of
Bible Scholars & experts of Greek language (non of them be JW) who know the language more than U & I. They spoke the truth. Your korokoro lie lie for their head speaks volumes about your credibility..
Why U dey fear to respond to "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption" (wikipedia) & the footnote of 1John5:7 ( NKJV with references.(or type in 1John 5:7 in biblegateway.com.).
& the other link, "Exodus 3:14 (chabad.org)"?

Primesky:


There is no merit in your argument. The reason for having 'a god' rather than just God, is nothing but religious bias. There is no 'a' anywhere in the original Greek text, so why add it?. Wouldn't that change the meaning?. The quiestion is, why did you guys change the lettering?. To suit what?. Your creed and believe. Go and translate the Greek word, word for word and see what you'll get. Stop lying here. How does that sound in your ears?. And the word was a god?. Stop the lies please.

Primesky, make I break am down for U to understand.
John 1:1 manuscript reads : "in beginning was the word & the word was toward or facing (with) the god , & god was the word".
Pls, note these points I will shortly highlight.
In your Bible , it reads " In the beginning.." Addition of 'the' beginning gives it a more precise meaning. Let's move forward.
The phrase "the word" gives a precise identity of some one (we know he is Jesus). The next sentence "..& the word was toward or facing (with) the god..".
From a careful & critical observation ,we see "the word" & some one else, "the god".
We have already known that "the word" is an identity of Jesus. Then,who is "the god"? The Almighty Father. Pls note ,we have two distinct personalities here ("the word & the god" ) side by side (not one entity but two entities). The final sentence reads "& god was the word". Here lies the bone of contention. Pls look at sentence well well. "and god was the word". We already know that "the word" is an identity of some one, Jesus. Also, "the god"
too is an identity of the Almighty Father. Let's be honest "and god..." lacks a definite article 'the' attached to it (that verse did not say " and the god was the word".. Therefore, in that final sentence, " god" is not the concrete identity of any entity. But , it points to a quality that is divine or godlike. Also, note that "was god" na past tense ooo!!!!
More so, John never said Jesus is God. Besides, Christ himself never said he is God. He always said he is the son whom his Father, God sent to save man (unless u wanna twist a Bible verse & put your own meaning). Addition of " 'a' god " gives precise meaning synonymous with scripture. Acts28:6. Ps 82:6. John 10:34. 1Cor 8:4-6. Shalom

OneJ:


Primesky, make I break am down for U to understand.
John 1:1 manuscript reads : "in beginning was the word & the word was toward or facing (with) the god , & god was the word".
Pls, note these points I will shortly highlight.
In your Bible , it reads " In the beginning.." Addition of 'the' beginning gives it a more precise meaning. Let's move forward.
The phrase "the word" gives a precise identity of some one (we know he is Jesus). The next sentence "..& the word was toward or facing (with) the god..".
From a careful & critical observation ,we see "the word" & some one else, "the god".
We have already known that "the word" is an identity of Jesus. Then,who is "the god"? The Almighty Father. Pls note ,we have two distinct personalities here ("the word & the god" ) side by side (not one entity but two entities). The final sentence reads "& god was the word". Here lies the bone of contention. Pls look at sentence well well. "and god was the word". We already know that "the word" is an identity of some one, Jesus. Also, "the god"
too is an identity of the Almighty Father. Let's be honest "and god..." lacks a definite article 'the' attached to it (that verse did not say " and the god was the word".. Therefore, in that final sentence, " god" is not the concrete identity of any entity. But , it points to a quality that is divine or godlike. Also, note that "was god" na past tense ooo!!!!
More so, John never said Jesus is God. Besides, Christ himself never said he is God. He always said he is the son whom his Father, God sent to save man (unless u wanna twist a Bible verse & put your own meaning). Addition of " 'a' god " gives precise meaning synonymous with scripture. Acts28:6. Ps 82:6. John 10:34. 1Cor 8:4-6. Shalom

Aaah!. brother, take it easy o. You have given it a new interpretation. Please interprete it word for word from the original Greek word. Why do you need to add to give it a meaning?. Can't you see that that addition is giving it a different meaning altogether?. The letter is clear in its own self!. You seem to jettison context in your interpretation. In what context was John describing the word that he said 'and the word was God'?. Can you read in line with the context?. This word has now become flesh, dwelling among men as men!. But He was God from the very beginning, not just 'a God'.

By claiming that Jesus was 'a God', you guys are contradicting your own selves, because it will mean there are two or more Gods dwelling together!, which you claim is not so, neither do we claim that. There's only one God. But since you guys have denied the Holy Spirit of God as a person, how will He now help you guys understand the words of God?. You have been told that only your chief slaves at whatch tower can tell you the truth, and there is the problem!


I have also told you before that while Jesus was on earth as a human being, He always did everything not to glorify Himself. However, there were times when He made some categorical statement that seem to have lost its complete meaning to translation.

Jesus said He is the son of God, and the jews got angery and wanted to stone Him, why?. Look at the verse below


John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

5:18 Therefore 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.

5:19 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.


Why would the jews seek to kill Him?, was it just for saying He was the son of God, was it just that?, it's clear from that scripture that the phrase, 'the Son of God' carried some significant meaning which English language could not convey, otherwise how would the jews say He is making himself equal with God seeing that He is a man. There's absolutely no way you guys can deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

OneJ:


Your lie lie too much. If "a god" never changed or "destroy the meaning & intent" of Acts 28:6 neither would "a god" in John 1:1 change anything. BTW,why are U still dodging the question: In English, does "god" in the manuscript mean the same thing as "God" which is not in the manuscript?
Besides, your claim "you're saying because Acts28:6 has the same grammatical construct, therefore, it must be the same thing." That's the honest, professional conclusion of
Bible Scholars & experts of Greek language (non of them be JW) who know the language more than U & I. They spoke the truth. Your korokoro lie lie for their head speaks volumes about your credibility..
Why U dey fear to respond to "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption" (wikipedia) & the footnote of 1John5:7 ( NKJV with references.(or type in 1John 5:7 in biblegateway.com.).
& the other link, "Exodus 3:14 (chabad.org)"?

Hahahah... You are always looking for one thing or the other to twist the scriptures. Different persons right from the jaws and pharesses have tried to deny Jesus as God, but the've all failed!. Your two notable corruption what ever what ever actually talks about what?.

To answer the question is to first understand a little about English translations and the foreign texts from which they sprang. Since the Johannine Comma is found almost exclusively in the King James Version of the Bible, then it becomes imperative to know that the Greek text which underlies its translation is the product of someone who never originally intended to publish a Greek text in the first place. That someone was Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest in the sixteenth century, who initially sought to revise Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Yet, because he was challenged, and hurried, to produce a Latin-Greek edition of the Bible before another text was planned to come off the press—the Complutensian Polyglot—Erasmus’s effort was not exactly what he had hoped for.

Having only a handful of later Greek manuscripts Erasmus published his first edition of Novum Instrumentum in 1516. It would not be until he published a third edition of his work—renamed Novum Testamentum—that the text of 1 John 5:7 would appear. Initially he was hesitant about including the wording in his work, since he knew of no Greek manuscripts that contained the Comma. A critic of his work, Edward Lee, accused Erasmus of defending the Arians—who were ardent critics themselves of the Trinity—by excluding the controversial verse. Erasmus eventually agreed to include it, if someone could provide manuscript evidence for its inclusion. He was told that Codex 61, a late sixteenth century document located in England at the time, contained the wording he was looking for. He included it in his text, even though he doubted its veracity, and made the point accordingly in his Annotationes (a sort of running commentary expressing his thoughts on his Greek-Latin translation).

Erasmus’s Greek-Latin text, therefore, became the foundation for later translations, including the Geneva Bible (1557 & 1560), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Tyndale Bible (1526), and of course, the King James or Authorized Version Bible (1611). That in itself is not necessarily evil, for as Greenlee points out, the TR (“Textus Receptus,” which stems from Erasmus’s efforts) “is not a ‘bad’ or misleading text, either theologically or practically.” No one will become a heretic by carefully using the TR as a tool to translate the Bible or exegete biblical doctrine. “Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars won the struggle to replace this hastily assembled text with a text which gave evidence of being closer to the nt autographs.” 3

http://capro.info/is-1john-57-a-corruption/

Now let me even say that the said verses were not there in the first place, what happened to the other more intense verses like the one Jesus says, I and my Father are one'. Maybe Albert Einstein disproved that?. Again, your citation against the deity of Jesus Christ is neither here nor there. What really happened?. Read up in the above link.

Primesky:


There is no merit in your argument. The reason for having 'a god' rather than just God, is nothing but religious bias. There is no 'a' anywhere in the original Greek text, so why add it?. Wouldn't that change the meaning?. The quiestion is, why did you guys change the lettering?. To suit what?. Your creed and believe. Go and translate the Greek word, word for word and see what you'll get. Stop lying here. How does that sound in your ears?. And the word was a god?. Stop the lies please.

You lack understanding if you are yet to grab the guys point.

Remove ' a ' from Act 28:6. Do you now agree Paul is GOD ?

Primesky:


Aaah!. brother, take it easy o. You have given it a new interpretation. Please interprete it word for word from the original Greek word. Why do you need to add to give it a meaning?. Can't you see that that addition is giving it a different meaning altogether?. The letter is clear in its own self!. You seem to jettison context in your interpretation. In what context was John describing the word that he said 'and the word was God'?. Can you read in line with the context?. This word has now become flesh, dwelling among men as men!. But He was God from the very beginning, not just 'a God'.

By claiming that Jesus was 'a God', you guys are contradicting your own selves, because it will mean there are two or more Gods dwelling together!, which you claim is not so, neither do we claim that. There's only one God. But since you guys have denied the Holy Spirit of God as a person, how will He now help you guys understand the words of God?. You have been told that only your chief slaves at whatch tower can tell you the truth, and there is the problem!


I have also told you before that while Jesus was on earth as a human being, He always did everything not to glorify Himself. However, there were times when He made some categorical statement that seem to have lost its complete meaning to translation.

Jesus said He is the son of God, and the jews got angery and wanted to stone Him, why?. Look at the verse below


John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

5:18 Therefore 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.

5:19 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.


Why would the jews seek to kill Him?, was it just for saying He was the son of God, was it just that?, it's clear from that scripture that the phrase, 'the Son of God' carried some significant meaning which English language could not convey, otherwise how would the jews say He is making himself equal with God seeing that He is a man. There's absolutely no way you guys can deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Continue to expose your ignorance

Is it wrong for a bible translator to translate Theo's as , ' a god ' ?

OneJ:


Your lie lie too much. If "a god" never changed or "destroy the meaning & intent" of Acts 28:6 neither would "a god" in John 1:1 change anything. BTW,why are U still dodging the question: In English, does "god" in the manuscript mean the same thing as "God" which is not in the manuscript?
Besides, your claim "you're saying because Acts28:6 has the same grammatical construct, therefore, it must be the same thing." That's the honest, professional conclusion of
Bible Scholars & experts of Greek language (non of them be JW) who know the language more than U & I. They spoke the truth. Your korokoro lie lie for their head speaks volumes about your credibility..
Why U dey fear to respond to "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption" (wikipedia) & the footnote of 1John5:7 ( NKJV with references.(or type in 1John 5:7 in biblegateway.com.).
& the other link, "Exodus 3:14 (chabad.org)"?

You cherish lies so much. You cute a link reporting about the findings and opinions of divergent individuals with their individual biased opinions. Then you pick up only the one that suits you and shout, here it is, this is the evidence, Primesky is a liar!. I feel ashamed for you. My question is, since the bible was translated from the Greek language or text, why did these individuals change it. The argument over there is whether to follow a rule or not to follow a rule in the translation. Why, because the Geek text has a problem of definite and indefinite article attached.

There arguments for and against our position of discussion, but see your reaction, as if the whole world agreed to this. Why don't you mention in the same site, those who oppose your position. What a shame. Your lies will be exposed. This is just the beginning.

Thank God for this thread, because I have now seen that there's more than meets the eye with your gentle approach. I am doing this not for hate or pride. But you guys should be honest to yourselves, and come to the truth.

The fact remains that there are scriptures not included, and there are scriptures modified by the Catholic Church. This is not the problem. If such is found, then go to the original text and translate from there.

What is going on here is that translators from divergent believes and varying opinions, interpret to suit their likings. For instance, why do you have to make the original Greek word for God a small letter and add 'a god'?, why do you change the spirit of God in the original letter to mere active force?. This you and your fellows have done just to deny the deity of Jesus Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit. Anybody who does that is not a Christian, period!.

To understand the reason behind these, one has to know your origin and the source of your information, creed and doctrine. For while the apostles support the teaching of Trinity, I do not know who inspired your position.

Peacefullove:


Continue to expose your ignorance

Is it wrong for a bible translator to translate Theo's as , ' a god ' ?

My ignorance?, really?. And the wise you is asking me if it's wrong for a translator to translate Theos as a god?. We done o! At least fear God.

Why should the translator change the original text?. Either you or one of your colleague directed me to I John 5:7 and called it a corruption of the bible by a translator. So why shouldn't we call this one a corruption as well?.

You guys should answer the questions I asked you about the failed prophecies and confusing changes in your religion. You guys said Jesus is already here, me I can't see him, so please wise person, tell me because I want to see Him, except maybe He is not the Jesus I know.

You guys should also tell us why people are still dying since the said date prophecied by the only mouth pieces of God that dear will no longer exist have come and past long ago.

Primesky:


There is no merit in your argument. The reason for having 'a god' rather than just God, is nothing but religious bias. There is no 'a' anywhere in the original Greek text, so why add it?. Wouldn't that change the meaning?. The quiestion is, why did you guys change the lettering?. To suit what?. Your creed and believe. Go and translate the Greek word, word for word and see what you'll get. Stop lying here. How does that sound in your ears?. And the word was a god?. Stop the lies please.

Primesky, U said "the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "
Also, U claimed that " 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.
My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
Also, remove 'a' from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD ?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!
Shalom.

OneJ:


Primesky, U said "the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "
Also, U claimed that " 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.
My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!

Answer the questions I asked you and your colleagues first and stop this your rigmarolling up and down. Even if you see you will still pretend or twist it. Answer the questions first, did they happen or not?.

Primesky:


Answer the questions I asked you and your colleagues first and stop this your rigmarolling up and down. Even if you see you will still pretend or twist it. Answer the questions first, did they happen or not?.

Oga Primesky, the first commandment of Nairalaland says thou shalt not derail threads by posting off topic. ( The topic of this thread is. Trinity ,anything else is off topic). I refuse to believe that U want to derail this thread.
Pls, answer the questions listed above. Shalom.

OneJ:


Oga Primesky, the first commandment of Nairalaland says thou shalt not derail threads by posting off topic. ( The topic of this thread is. Trinity ,anything else is off topic). I refuse to believe that U want to derail this thread.
Pls, answer the questions listed above. Shalom.

Hahaha... What a clever way to dodge. Answer the questions there. Rather than seek the truth about your religion, you're protecting the lie.

If you don't answer those questions, I will create a thread for it. You guys can't continue to fool people around by claiming to be servants and believers in Jesus Christ. If you would not want to know, others should.

Primesky:


Hahaha... What a clever way to dodge. Answer the questions there. Rather than seek the truth about your religion, you're protecting the lie.

If you don't answer those questions, I will create a thread for it. You guys can't continue to fool people around by claiming to be servants and believers in Jesus Christ. If you would not want to know, others should.

Nobody stops U from opening another thread to discuss another topic or any other topic U want.
But ,as an honourable man (I believe that U are), Pls, use your Church mind to provide answers to those listed questions ( Remove 'a'. from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD? this one join ooo !!) These questions are at the heart of this Trinity topic of this thread. Shalom

OneJ:


Nobody stops U from opening another thread to discuss another topic or any other topic U want.
But ,as an honourable man (I believe that U are), Pls, use your Church mind to provide answers to those listed questions ( Remove 'a'. from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD? this one join ooo !!) These questions are at the heart of this Trinity topic of this thread. Shalom

If all the answers I have given you is not OK, so be it for you. It's clear context doesn't exist in your religious practice. All this is done just to discredit the deity of Jesus Christ. You have failed already, because you all will bow before Him. Twist the scriptures, misquote it as you like, it won't shift the reality.

I thank God so much, because this discussion with you guys have opened my eyes to really see who Jehovah witnesses truly are and what they represent. My concern is for those among you who do not really know what's happening.

I have never seen any group of persons who can twist facts and truth like you guys, including going against context, direct open lies. The naive person will even think you're Christians, what a lie!.

May the God of grace open your eyes like He has done for some among you, who you now call unrepentant wrong doers.

Peacefullove:


Continue to expose your ignorance

Is it wrong for a bible translator to translate Theo's as , ' a god ' ?

Yes now! It is wrong!

Doesn't "Theos" translate to "God"?

OneJ:


Primesky, U said "the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "
Also, U claimed that " 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.
My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
Also, remove 'a' from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD ?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!
Shalom.

Primesky, U see your life? U dey run like Usain Bolt because your posts U made here done expose the falsehood U wan defend.
Based on the posts/ statements U made on this thread (which i quoted) above, I asked U to respond to 3 Questions listed here (Q1,Q2& Q3). ( I no lie against Primesky oo! Make una read & see him posts 4 dis thread.)
Shameless, pathological liar, U dey throw shade to cover up .... Eee no go save U & U no go fit dodge am at all !!
Nairalanders & distinguished guests who follow this thread, can U see how hard, fraudulent & frightening it can be to defend the man made fallacy called Trinity ?
Make una help me beg Primesky to respond to the 3 questions wey make am run pass Usain Bolt.
Honourable men do not disclaim & contradict their posts/ statements on NL, unlike these confused characters who come here to defend what Jesus himself neither taught nor believed in.

Primesky:


If all the answers I have given you is not OK, so be it for you. It's clear context doesn't exist in your religious practice. All this is done just to discredit the deity of Jesus Christ. You have failed already, because you all will bow before Him. Twist the scriptures, misquote it as you like, it won't shift the reality.

I thank God so much, because this discussion with you guys have opened my eyes to really see who Jehovah witnesses truly are and what they represent. My concern is for those among you who do not really know what's happening.

I have never seen any group of persons who can twist facts and truth like you guys, including going against context, direct open lies. The naive person will even think you're Christians, what a lie!.

May the God of grace open your eyes like He has done for some among you, who you now call unrepentant wrong doers.

Kwe keeeey !!!!! See person wey run like Usain Bolt because of 3 simple questions wey kindergarten pupil go answer sharp sharp.
U wey your own NL posts dey confuse U ,na which kain truth U wan give others?
Ok, na confusion transmission..
Hahahahahahaaaaa !!!!!!

OneJ:


Primesky, U see your life? U dey run like Usain Bolt because your posts U made here done expose the falsehood U wan defend.
Based on the posts/ statements U made on this thread (which i quoted) above, I asked U to respond to 3 Questions listed here (Q1,Q2& Q3). ( I no lie against Primesky oo! Make una read & see him posts 4 dis thread.)
Shameless, pathological liar, U dey throw shade to cover up .... Eee no go save U & U no go fit dodge am at all !!
Nairalanders & distinguished guests who follow this thread, can U see how hard, fraudulent & frightening it can be to defend the man made fallacy called Trinity ?
Make una help me beg Primesky to respond to the 3 questions wey make am run pass Usain Bolt.
Honourable men do not disclaim & contradict their posts/ statements on NL, unlike these confused characters who come here to defend what Jesus himself neither taught nor believed in.

May God forgive you for this lies. Those who know the true Christ Jesus will certainly see that you're an Antichrist.

How come the small letters for God?. Is that what the Greek letter showed you?.

Even if it's a child that's translating the verses in acts, He will not think twice to know that apostle Paul or King Herod are human beings, and cannot be on the same level. The Greek language has a problem with definite and indefinite article placement. That's where all these arguments comes in. Different translators and languages add their own part to make sense of the right up. But you and the likes of all those who do not reverence Christ have hung on it to commit such unforgivable wickedness.

The bible even called us humans gods, but we are not on the same level with God or Christ. If any body therefore comes to such a point in translation, does he/she need to be told what applies. You're just a hater of Jesus Christ. You calling to know Him but you don't.

I began this argument with you guys thinking you were Christians with a divergent view, not knowing I was discussing with haters of Jesus Christ. You have lied and twisted scriptures out of context, and you are loudest. Don't worry your lies will go public soon. Bring your defense to the front pages of the section.

For the fact that you can still be denying my responses tells it all.

You have equated Jesus Christ with Paul, and placed them on the same scale, please tell me what else do you expect me to tell a person like that?. Which of your deceptions haven't I answered?.

This is just the beginning of the exposure of your falsehood, wait for it!. I have nothing against you as a person, but you're promoting an Antichrist agenda. Whether you know it or not, I cannot tell.

Non of you agreed to answer my questions, and the only argument you had was that it's not part of the discussion.

For me to keep arguing with people who change like chameleon, alter your own very words, deny your response and shout the highest, tells me more than I can say.

Theirs actually no difference between you (Jehovah witnesses and the Alien believers) you both are claiming that Jesus was created. When the devil has a common front with a supposed believer in Jesus Christ, then there's a big problem. Before we even begin to answer any question, we have to establish who you really are. Those questions you guys refused to answer, we shall see what you will do.

There's no point arguing here, there are few persons viewing it. Let's push it to a front page let the whole world see it. Prepare your self. To tell us some fact.

Once again thank you for showing me who you guys truly are.

budaatum:

Yes now! It is wrong!

Doesn't "Theos" translate to "God"?

Theos was translated ' a god' at Act 28 vs 6, thats corrupt right?

Primesky:


My ignorance?, really?. And the wise you is asking me if it's wrong for a translator to translate Theos as a god?. We done o! At least fear God.

Why should the translator change the original text?.

Ignorance

Answer me first , is it wrong Yes or no

Going by your last analogy of why should a translator change the original text.

Will you now just admit , the rendering of Theo's as ' a god ' in Act 28 vs 6 is pure corruption ?

Peacefullove:


Theos was translated ' a god' at Act 28 vs 6, thats corrupt right?

'Theos', with a capital letter 'T' was translated to "a god" with small letter 'g'?

Below is the actual text.

The people were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after they had waited a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

The only way that capital Theos would apply would be if they thought he was the God, which, since they were talking about Paul could not have been the case. A proper translation in the context above would be "a god". So, not a corruption as first suggested.

OneJ:


Primesky, U said "the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "
Also, U claimed that " 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.
My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
Also, remove 'a' from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD ?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!
Shalom.

And so, in response to the above, Q1 would properly be translated to 'god', and not 'God'.

Q2 is generally translated as 'God', though wiki suggests that it could have meant "divine". It seems to depend on whether one is a trinitarian or not as to which one decides to use. Since most Bibles take a trinitarian position, one should expect 'God' to be meant, and not 'god'. There is no original manuscript to determine which was used, but one can determine that God was meant, whether rightly or wrongly. The Jews would argue that whatever was meant, it was not and cannot be God, the Jealous Almighty.

Q3 Christianity generally differentiates between 'god' and 'God'. The latter being the Almighty Jealous God, and the former being any odd god like Ogun, Sango, Odin, Zeus etc.

Primesky, U said "may God forgive U for your lies". Na which lie be that ?

(1) Pls, tell Nairalanders & our guests, did U at anytime made these statements below (in quote ) on this thread?
Pls answer 'Yes' or 'No'

"the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "

" 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.


(2) Your posts led to my questions below.

My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
Also, remove 'a' from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD ?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!
Shalom.

(3) At first , did U reply ? No !
Initially, Primesky said. " Answer the questions I asked you and your colleagues first and stop your rigmarolling" .

In your further response, U resorted to name calling & casting aspersions. Until "Buudatom" gave his response & U come use style reply dey throw shade spiced with more lies.
Never at anytime did I lie against U. ( U have no proof)

Primesky:


May God forgive you for this lies. Those who know the true Christ Jesus will certainly see that you're an Antichrist.

How come the small letters for God?. Is that what the Greek letter showed you?.

. The Greek language has a problem with definite and indefinite article placement.


I began this argument with you guys thinking you were Christians with a divergent view, not knowing I was discussing with haters of Jesus Christ. You have lied and twisted scriptures out of context, and you are loudest.


You have equated Jesus Christ with Paul, and placed them on the same scale, please tell me what else do you expect me to tell a person like that?.


Non of you agreed to answer my questions, and the only argument you had was that it's not part of the discussion.

The above are the twists & somersaults of Primesky.
The best means to expose false allegations is solid evidence.
Here is the Greek transliteration (word for word translation) of John 1:1 to English, as it is in the Greek manuscript.
Greek:
"En archei en ho logos ,kai ho logos en pros ton theon ,kai theos en ho logos"

English : "in beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word"

Source: John 1:1 wikipedia.. (From the sub heading "source texts & translations.).

(i) The first observation is that the texts is small letters.
Primesky lied that JWs changed it & "twisted scriptures out of contexts." Also, he said "how come the small letter for God? Is that what the Greek letter showed you?"

Na him Trinity peddlers remove small letter "god" as eee dey for manuscript & twist am to big letter "God" to make their Trinity lie lie sweet for their own ears.

Nairalanders, una dey see as him dey throw shade & post falsehood & distort the truth?
For John 1:1 , If U check am well well the Greeks
call Baba God Almighty "the god" & come say "the word" na small god. That is the difference: Baba GOD ALMIGHTY na "the god" . Jesus the word na god . But him no be "the god" Almighty Jah.



(ii) Primesky said "the Greek language has a problem with definite & indefinite article placement"
He is a liar & he can twist anything to suit his whim & falsehood.
The Greek language has no problem with the definite article . For instance "The" is used frequently in Greek. John 1:1 says "the word was with the god". "The" stand gidigba for Greek language& for inside manuscript.

OneJ:


Here is the Greek transliteration (word for word translation) of John 1:1 to English, as it is in the Greek manuscript.
Greek:
"En archei en ho logos ,kai ho logos en pros ton theon ,kai theos en ho logos"

English : "in beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word"

Source: John 1:1 wikipedia.. (From the sub heading "source texts & translations.).

Do me a favour please. Post me Greek for Genesis 1:1. We do know the god there is the big G God. Lets compare with how its written in Greek.

budaatum:

Do me a favour please. Post me Greek for Genesis 1:1. We do know the god there is the big G God. Lets compare with how its written in Greek.

Pls read & digest Prov8:22-30.Hebr 1:1-3. Gen 1:1,26. Coloss1:15,16 . 1Cor 15:24-28
Then ,John 1:1,2. will make more sense to U. ( As for your request ,if i can. but pls give me time..). Shalom

OneJ:


Pls read & digest Prov8:22-30.Hebr 1:1-3. Gen 1:1,26. Coloss1:15,16 . 1Cor 15:24-28
Then ,John 1:1,2. will make more sense to U. ( As for your request ,if i can. but pls give me time..). Shalom

Read them all. And can understand why people claim Jesus is God from those text, though I have to admit that if one were indoctrinated otherwise, those text and numerous others can be used to claim God is not Jesus.

The Proverbs one comes from a gnostic idea whereby Wisdom is deified. How, what could be considered, Pagan Thought crept into the Bible amuses me, but it is a better book for its inclusion since Wisdom is as worthy as being deified as lightening, and iron by primitive people.

Take the one below for instance

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 New International Version (NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[a] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The bolded is talking about two separate entities.

I patiently wait. Thanks.

budaatum:

'Theos', with a capital letter 'T' was translated to "a god" with small letter 'g'?

Below is the actual text.

The people were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after they had waited a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

The only way that capital Theos would apply would be if they thought he was the God, which, since they were talking about Paul could not have been the case. A proper translation in the context above would be "a god". So, not a corruption as first suggested.

Glad you have realized your earlier mistake of saying Theo's is corrupt if translated ' a god'

Likewise, at John 1:1 those who didn't capitalize Theo's are right because Jesus is not the God . he is a son of the God, the God is the God of Jesus himself @bold

The forgeries in the Scriptures to support the Trinity .
Actual rendering of 1Tim3:16 . "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great. He appeared in a body......"
The forged version (in KJV), reads "God was manifest in the flesh".
In the codice sinaiticus & other older manuscripts "God" wasn't there in the manuscript. These fraudulent people inserted "God" to sweeten their lie.

OneJ:



The above are the twists & somersaults of Primesky.
The best means to expose false allegations is solid evidence.
Here is the Greek transliteration (word for word translation) of John 1:1 to English, as it is in the Greek manuscript.
Greek:
"En archei en ho logos ,kai ho logos en pros ton theon ,kai theos en ho logos"

English : "in beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word"

Source: John 1:1 wikipedia.. (From the sub heading "source texts & translations.).

(i) The first observation is that the texts is small letters.
Primesky lied that JWs changed it & "twisted scriptures out of contexts." Also, he said "how come the small letter for God? Is that what the Greek letter showed you?"

Na him Trinity peddlers remove small letter "god" as eee dey for manuscript & twist am to big letter "God" to make their Trinity lie lie sweet for their own ears.

Nairalanders, una dey see as him dey throw shade & post falsehood & distort the truth?
For John 1:1 , If U check am well well the Greeks
call Baba God Almighty "the god" & come say "the word" na small god. That is the difference: Baba GOD ALMIGHTY na "the god" . Jesus the word na god . But him no be "the god" Almighty Jah.



(ii) Primesky said "the Greek language has a problem with definite & indefinite article placement"
He is a liar & he can twist anything to suit his whim & falsehood.
The Greek language has no problem with the definite article . For instance "The" is used frequently in Greek. John 1:1 says "the word was with the god". "The" stand gidigba for Greek language& for inside manuscript.

You have lied again!. You are the one twisting everything here. Please anyone interested should search for the original Greek word. God is not in small letters. Secondly, the absence of the article 'a' is what has given this false religion a loop hole to twist the scriptures. The absence of the articles, is what has given every translator an independence or freedom to add whatever they choose, adding 'a' where it's not supposed to. If an Antichrist comes to that point it becomes a bonanza for him. Despite seeing the context that it was referring to God, this people because of their hatred for Jesus Christ added 'a' to it which is not supposed to given the context, and all they could do was to equat it with Paul and Herod, thereby putting Jesus Christ on the same level with these mortals. What a shame!.

Say no to Jehovah witness, it's a false religion. Stop lying and blaming others. You can't fool every body. Seek the real Jesus now. I just pray that someday, you oneJ, will come out of this false religion like others have and tell us the whole truth yourself!, yes it can happen. It has happened before and it will happen again!.

OneJ, I do not seek to quarrel with you. In as much as I want you to see the truth. But whereby you twist my words, and the scriptures and turn around again to accuse me falsely is very saddening.

I guess my error here is in not itemizing for you each answer for each question. I will urge you now to patiently read through the text below.

I did tell you that you and the Jws in general from all I have seen, interpret the bible out of context perhaps in a bid to support your doctrine and religious beliefs. In fact this very act led me to wanting to know why you guys do this, only to discover you are not Christians after all.

Now for your questions,

Seeing that for some languages like English, translating the original Greek text without adding some modifying articules, would almost make it meaningless. However, where such is not necessary like the case of John 1:1, there's no need to add one, unfortunately you people did and infact made it a small letter. Another issue here is that if a translator is adding a qualifying article to the text, context should not be thrown outside the window, but you people did!. Hence, according to you, a similar grammayical construct appears in the said verses you gave, and when the article 'a' appears, you justified why it should be in the place given to God in John 1:1?. Why?, because you have a preconceived opinion that Jesus is like every other creature so no special honour should be given Him. But the bible clearly disproved that!. And my question to you was, why did you people add the 'a' in the first case, now let me repeat the reason, it's because you, your likes in believe and who ever translated that your version for you, have a biased believe or do not believe in the diety of Jesus Christ, but the bible again disproves that!. This is what I wanted to get from you, but again, you cleverly dodged it. Rather you began to churn up Wikipedia pages of people who align with your believe as a proof, neglecting those who don't in the same place.

I asked you a question which you know would have exposed your false religion, and put every argument to rest, but you refused, claiming it is derailing of thread. Hahaha... You just wanted the argument to continue. All of these I explained above, I have explained them to you before, but I guess, since I didn't itemize them to you, it means I didn't answer them?. No need to make a noise.

Those questions you guys have refused to answer is just a tip of the iceberg. I can't believe that I actually took you guys as believers in Jesus Christ like the rest of other Christians.

Is god and God the same?. No! What is your point here?. Is God in small letters in the original Greek text?. This is why I ignored you, because you will argue and deny it. If I present my own opinion and links won't you still twist and turn it?. Because your religion supports it. Read the following below and be humble enough to reason. Thank you.

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)
The Predicate Coming Before the Subject
Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.
The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

https://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm