@babs787 and olabowale,

I decided to bring this discussion to a neat thread so that we may have the opportunity of examining your misconceptions about the Greek terms for ‘God’ in the Gospel of John. It is not as if your queries are difficult in any way, nor as if there are no answers to proffer. Rather, babs787 has been in the habit of plagiarizing other people’s articles without even exercising the discipline to carefully check if he could defend their assumptions at any level. Anyone can do exactly what you both have done in copping out Deedat’s argument  – which is to go to those same websites and glom their articles to dubiously present as their own argument on Nairaland. That attitude puts the plagiarist far below any thinking man, because it confirms that you’ve never sought to present anything original of your own; not to mention how scared olabowale has been the last few hours in being asked to examine the texts in Greek.

The one reason why I would even oblige you here is to help you understand what you clearly do not have any scholarship on – and by so doing, bring your attention to the fact that constantly lifting the same unscholarly arguments from those websites and pretend them as your own on Nairaland will only ridicule the pretended scholarship of your Muslim propagandists.

First, let me run through your misgivings about the articles which you  had plagiarized (mainly from Ahmed Deedat) in arguing this subject. Many Great Ones have copied that article without first reasoning them through before recycling them all over the internet. A few of such Great One websites include Sbeel-al-I'slam, [url=http://www.jews-for-god.org/Jews-and-Great Ones-Agree/no-trinity.htm]Jews-for-Allāh[/url], and certainly your favourite Answering-Christianity.com. No wonder: because they have no basic understanding of the Greek language, and so are unable to verify Deedat’s assumptions before recycling them.

Unfortunately, Ahmed Deedat did not demonstrate even a basic understanding of Greek; and from that weak position, he had tried to mislead his readers on the subject he clearly had no knowledge about while pretending to have examined John’s Gospel in the Greek.

This is the part that I will be dealing with in my discussion, as has been reposted by olabowale:

olabowale:

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

There are just two basic issues that inform this thread:

(a) that ‘logos’ (λογος) in ancient Greek actually means ‘word’
(b) that there are several valid Greek terms for ‘God’

Your argument has sought to deny those basic facts; and since your premise was to repeat the same unfortunate fallacies from your Muslim apologists (such as Ahmed Deedat), my answers will be demonstrating how colossally they have cheated their readers in that regard.

@babs787 and olabowale,

Before proceeding to examine the Greek terms for ‘God’ (both in John 1 v 1 and other verses throughout the NT), a few misconceptions highlighted in your previous quotes (as also earlier copped out and posted by babs787 here) need to be cleared from the onset. In that quote, pilgrim.1 had asked babs787 to “look again at your argument for TON THEOS” (here) – but it didn’t seem he was humble enough to take her advice.

This was his initial quote (same as olabowale has reposted in this link):

(A)

babs787:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

. . . followed by this comment:

(B)

babs787:

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god). . .

. . . but babs787 immediately contradicted the above when he again stated:

(C)

babs787:

In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is "TON THEON", which means "a god".

Here’s where the problems appear in your reasoning:

(1) The first time the word ‘God’ appears in that quote it was written as “τον (the) θεον (god)”. You cannot make two contradictory statements sound the same by making  “TON THEON” to mean “a god” [ in your statement: "TON THEON", which means "a god" – quote (C)] whereas you already made ton theon to mean “(the) (god)”[ in your statement: “o theos or[b] ton theon[/b], which are proper ways of saying God (or[b] the god[/b]”]!

If your initial comments quoted as in (B) directly and categorically contradict your second comments in (C), then are we to assume that you don’t know the difference as to whether “ton theon”  means:

[list][li]God (or the god); [/li][/list]
         or
[list][li]"a god"?[/li][/list]


Obviously, the two meanings cannot both be derived from the same “ton theon” –  do you mind showing us which is the correct meaning of that Greek term? (This was why I had asked those 3 simple questions which babs787 constantly evaded – (a) here; (b) there; and (c) here again!)


(2) When you stated that “o theos or ton theon” are “proper ways” of saying God (or the god), does it then mean that the word “theos” when written solely on its own is not also a proper way of saying “God” in Greek in that same Gospel of John? That seems to be the deliberate inference made in this part of babs787’s quote:

babs787:

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

What that implies is that your Muslim scholar assumes the following:

a. "theos" written solely on its own would mean “just any random deity”;
b. while “ ton theon” would be implying “the same God”.

Rather than plagiarize Ahmed Deedat’s illiterate article, have YOU (babs787 and olabowale) carefully checked to see that the same “theos”  is used as a proper reference for “God”? We shall see this consequently.

Meanwhile, you gentlemen are only confirming that Muslim hypocrisy is rivalled by none! People like Ahmed Deedat may argue painfully that “o theos or ton theon”  are ‘proper ways of saying God (or the god)’, and yet Muslims who have translated the Qur’an into the Greek language avoid using the correct Greek terms! Rather, they have used the Arabic [‘Allah’] in the Greek translations of the Qur’an while carefully and systematically avoiding the Greek terms (theos or theon) in such translations! Since we all know that ‘Allah’ is NOT Greek, what then is that Arabic term doing in the Greek translations of the Qur’an while hypocrites like Deedat were busy trying to malign the English translations of John’s Gospel?

It’s easy to argue disparagingly against the Greek terms for ‘God’ and ‘Word’ in John 1:1 as Deedat has done - because he capitalized on the fact that his readers have no clue about Greek and so were gullible enough to swallow his fallacies wholesale, even though he confuses and contradicts his premise and meanings as have been demonstrated just above.

Just one more thing before going on to other concerns:

babs787:
So Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word.

In the first place, Ahmed Deedat offered only one out of several meanings of “logos” in ancient Greek which we find in your earlier quote of John 1:1 - “λογος (reason/intellect)”.

He makes such dubious cut-and-run claims as in the above quote that “logos does not mean word in ancient Greek”; whereas we all know that “word” is actually one of the several meanings of “logos” (λογος). Let me quote the Wiktionary entry that clearly resolves this issue and shows indeed that one of the several meanings in translation of “logos” (λογος) is actually “word” –

Etymology 1

From Ancient Greek λόγος (logos)
“speech, oration, discourse,
quote, story, study, ratio,
word, calculation, reason”

from λέγω (lego) “to speak, to converse, to tell a story, to calculate”.

Source: (Wiktionary on logos).


Please verify the above by accessing the source, which should help you see that Ahmed Deedat’s claim on “logos” is false.

In ancient Greek, ‘logos’ was also known as “word” (as shown above) and is[b] not[/b] a “corrupt modern translation” as Deedat asserted. For Deedat to have claimed that the translation of logos to word was “a corrupt modern translation” is a dishonest Muslim effort to win cheap applause for Islam. Perhaps, you may also want to see the Wikipedia article on Logos for more.

It was essential to clarify these two misconceptions in your copped-out post about “logos” and the Greek terms “theos” and “theon” for ‘God’.

As we have seen, Ahmed Deedat was cheating his readers with colossally false assumptions! Unfortunately, as always is the case with Muslims, they only tend to celebrate and endlessly recycle the illiterate assumptions of Muslim propagandists without the discipline to check them out! What an utter shame!

Having pointed out the fallacies in your plagiarized articles, I’ll go on next to show you how very flawed Ahmed Deedat was in his summations on John 1 v 1.


John 1 v 1 – Theos (θεος) and Theon (θεον): GOD

As we have just seen, one of the meanings of the Greek term “logos” (λογος) is “word” (from Wiktionary), and there is no need wasting time arguing out Deedat’s false premise on that. Rather, we shall go on now to examine the Greek terms for ‘God’ in John’s Gospel; and in the transliteration of John 1:1, I’d be using “word” for “logos” (λογος) for a more accessible reading.

Greek of John 1 v 1:

εν  αρχη  ην  ο  λογος
και  ο  λογος  ην  προς  τον θεον
και  θεος  ην  ο  λογος


Transliteration:

en arche en ho logos
kai ho logos en pros ton theon
kai theos en ho logos

(kai theos en ho logos – ‘and God was the Word’)

The English translation of John 1 v 1 as given in the KJV is:

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

Most other English translations and versions (such as ASV, NIV, Darby, ESV and several others) agree with the KJV’s rendering of that verse.

Please observe that the English word 'God' appears twice in that verse, and there are tw[/b]o Greek terms used for this:

~ Θεόν ([b]theon) - in "the Word was with God"
~ Θεός (theos) - in "the Word was God"

Do these two Greek terms (Θεόν and Θεός) represent two "Gods" in John's Gospel? Certainly not. Both words are translated in English as "God"; and in the context of John 1 v 1, they simply mean that the Word (Logos - λογος) was essentially the same as 'God'.   

Now for some reason, Muslim apologists have tried to configure these Greek terms to the idea that only one of the terms actually means ‘God’ while the other is not. Citing babs787’s copped-out quote again:

babs787:

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

On the contrary, “theos” (even when written solely on its own) is used to refer to ‘God’. Not only so, but it is remarkable that both words (Θεόν and Θεός) are used in the rest of the Gospel of John (as well as in other NT references) to refer to ‘God’. John 1 v 1 is not the only verse where one finds Θεόν (theon) and Θεός (theos); and in other verses where we find them, it is even more remarkable that both are used to refer to the very same ‘God’.


Now, I would kindly ask you gentlemen to go through the Gospel of John and find a few verses where those two terms are used. Failing to do so, I'll understand even more that you lot and Deedat rolled into one are olodos! John's Gospel has both Greek terms - and several other terms for GOD! The reason why that is so is what I will be sharing with you in subsequent posts.

Do you care to go through John's Gospel to find those verses?

stimulus:

Do you care to go through John's Gospel to find those verses?

Perhaps we may make it more interesting by asking you to take this assignment:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

@Stimulus: In the first instance, all worshippers believe that their god is truly God. I remember my youth in Yorubaland of Nigeria, seeing the Onisongos go through their rituals; the dances and the offerings and the kneeling down, etc. They too, believe in God and through their songo, the lesser god thought that they are sincere worshippers. This is the case with you as a Christian.

Your premise that Sheikh Ahmed Deedat did not know what the proper word for God the Creator is and what any god, that a person deitifies is, in Greek is foolish to say it mildly. And my reason is this; Unlike your blind assumptions and your lack of ability to be civil and direct in argument, are you aware that there are Greeks in Greece and in other parts of the world who are Muslims? (And you aught to have known that I meant to write that I am not a Greek in the Trinity Thread, except that your Childish, almost juvenile street quality of thinking will not allow you to be objective).

Here in America, and indeed New York City; the jews hae a saying and it indicates in a general sense of their belief and insincerity in that belief: "In God we Trust, and the rest is cash!" What it does proof is that they also worship Currency, as the song goes, "almighty dollar!" So your actually saying that theos truly mean God the Almighty Creator, just as TonTheon is ridiculous. Reasons are these; The most glearing is that while you are trying so hard to put Jesus in place before creation and assumed that he was the word that was with God Almighty, you have ignorantly not examined and take into consideration that three is not two in your attempt to prove Trinity.

First, in that verse of John 1 Verse 1, nothing indicated that Spirit and word were with God (as entity that were also God).
Second, the verse clearly indicated that God is singular, which is consistent with Old testament understanding of God. It also confirmed what Jesus himself said in Verse 29 of Mark 12.
Third, we observe that that verse John1 Verse 1 was written after Jesus was lifted up, hence he could not rebuke the writer and all who wanted to equate him with God and deitified him. Afterall, we see how contradictory is Mark 12 Verse 29 is to John 1 Verse 1, if one were to assume that Jesus was there as the "word" in John 1 vertse 1. However, if one will take the true opinion in understanding that God Almighty Creator speaks audibly and His voice could be heard, (afterall He spoke to Moses, first in the burning bush and in many other places and several other prophets (as), before and after Moses, and gave his commands to the Angels (as)), the verse will agree with each other.

A honest man will not give us the song and dance as you did, by discarding the OT and the usage of the words and god, gods and God in them, and relate all of that to the time of Jesus and post Jesus in the Bible. One will clearly see that god is used loosely not only to indicate God Almighty, but even humans and inanimate objects. If dishonesty is what you stand on, good for you. But you must never forget that as a Muslim, the Qur'an by Allah has informed us that your book; Bible both the old and new testaments are corrupt, already corrupted by the hands of scholars and writers among you. From the old day and even in recent times, a period that is less that 60 years; circa 1952 or so compared to 1970 or so!

To now invite me to switch from Trinity, a word that does not appear in your Bible, though clumsily an idea is developed to paint a mural of it is like me describing a beautiful person, but never gave a gender to indicate, whether she is a woman and i want everybody to assume is my woman folk; my mother or my wife or my sister or my aunt or my niece or my cousin. I did not say my grandmothers because they are both dead (ra). Whereas, in the Bible we have the word comforter to describe an entity that will come after Jesus. And in the Qur'an, we see in Surah Saff (verse 6), that Allah says that Jesus role included announcing the coming of Ahmad (a name belonging to Muhammad (as), and it means the one who comfort; try the arabic for size).

Unfortunately, you have forgotten that Islam by Qur'an says that allah is the proper name of God, and in many translations of what it means, the translators in those languages often give a disclaimer that these translations are not the "Qur'an" and yet some preserve the name "Allah" to denote God Almighty Creator as much as they can.

I wonder how you will handle the day of judgement when you realise that Jesus was never more than a command of God, his Creator? And when i say the day of judgement, it actually starts from the time when the soul/Spirit (they mean the thing that makes the body alive, they are not two things, contrary to your misunderstanding. (thanks to M_Nwanko)). Jesus will have no ability to support you and actually will deny you on that day!

My dear olabowale and holythug,

You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves. After plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat's illiterate arguments, I took the time to debunk his holy lies about the meaning of LOGOS, THEOS and THEON - and all I see is the intellectual harrumph and story telling that you came back with? Shame. Is illiteracy the hallmark of Islam?

Now, if you don't mind, I have answered the questions that your Muslim apologists and propagandists have been noising abroad all this while by refuting Deedat on John 1 v 1. In fair return, I left a few questions for your assignment:

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Please I want answers to those questions, and until you provide the answers, don't try to defelct this thread with your illiterate comments. Nothing is going to atone for your lying adventures for Allāh, and this is one subject where I intend to put your cowardice to sleep once and for all. By the time we are through, we shall see the demon that Muhammad has cheated you with! For this Quraish prophet to say that every Muslim has a demon attache is not surprising that he came preaching another deity.

I warned you olabowale especially - you don't joke with the Trinity. This thread will show you who has been hiding behind that name "Allāh" that Muslims worship. No detractions with your silly illiterate comments - just stay on course and deal with the subject.

@olabowale,

While you are biting your fingers and getting even more confused about John 1:1, what have you said about the fact that the term "logos" (λογος) actually means "word" in ancient Greek? Why did Deedat LIE so assertively to deceive you Muslims and you have been celebrating that lie on Allāh's behalf?

What have you said about the fact that Deedat was WRONG about the meaning of theos and theon in John 1:1? It was easy for him to have deceived you - because there's nothing better than celebrating lies and denials in Islam!

If you think that this is about stooping down to Muhammad's denials, I'm sorry for you! You haven't met the gist of exactly who Muhammad was! There is no panic measures of story-telling that will atone for your emptiness here - and until you smart up and attend to the subject, don't even try to entertain or patronize me with the nonsense you have often used as first-aid to cover up your mewling arguments.

Different Translations of John 1:1


King James Version

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


New International Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Douay-Rheims Bible

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


The above are the different translations of the concerned verse as seen in the different versions of the Bible. When moving from one translation or the other, this verse is generally translated in the same manner in all the versions. However there is a certain level of deception in these translations.


Greek Text of John 1:1


The Greek Text

εν αρχη ην ο λογοϚ, και ο λογοϚ ην προϚ τον θεον, και θεοϚ ην ο λογοϚ.

Pay close attention to the words in the bold text. I will translate these texts below:



Transliteration, Pronunciation and Translation


Greek word: ο
Transliteration: ho

Pronunciation: ho

Translation: the


Greek word: λογοϚ
Transliteration: logos

Pronunciation: log'-os

Translation: word



The Mistranslated Word ‘θεοϚ’


In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2 articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek however there is only 1 article which is definite.


When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great deception will come below.


Greek word: θεοϚ

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os
This word ‘theos’ does not only mean[b] ‘God’[/b] with a capital ‘G’. According to the “Thayer’s Greek Definitions”, the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:


“A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”


One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:
“A deity.”


As seen above, theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses ‘articles’.
^{Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a sentence, ‘ο’ (ho) or ‘τον’ (ton) is used respectively.}

Verifying the English Translation


Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘θεοϚ’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘θεον’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘θεον’ and the text is thus written as ‘τον θεον’ which is transliterated to beton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘θεοϚ’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.


Correct Translation


The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:


In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.


However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.
Random Translations by Christendom

Not only does Christendom not translated John 1:1 properly, it is seen that they have been randomly translating the terms ‘ho theos’ and ‘ton theon’. For example lets take a look at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

In that verse ‘ho theos’ is translated as ‘the god’ with a small ‘g’ to refer to Satan. In the same verse ‘ton theon’ is translated as ‘God’. This is a clear ‘pick and choose’ tactic being practiced by Christendom.
Conclusion


The Christian world is trying hard to cover up the correct wordings of this verse. As it is the only verse in the Bible which came closest to the concept of Trinity, 1John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), has been detected as a fabrication and a corruption in the Bible by biblical scholars and kept out of the later versions of the Bible. This verse in truth also does not support Jesus’ divinity. So what we find is that as more investigations are made into the Greek texts of the Bible, Jesus is seen to be losing the “divinity factor”. However it is up to the Christian brothers and sister to realize the games that the Churches are playing with them.
It is an undeniable fact that the Bible got corrupted over time, so our brothers should leave the corrupted Old and New Testaments and come towards the uncorrupted Final Testament – Al The Great Book.

@holythug,

Bo, thank you for attempting an intelligent answer o jare! This Muslim attitude of trying to mesmerize people with illiterate remarks is the reason why I no longer pay folks like olabowale any attention with long, winding stories to cover up his retard games. How do you explain his penchant to continue ridiculing the Trinity even when he's not saying anything that amounts to an intelligent input? Not to mention that I've severally appealed to him to show deference to other people's convictions! When Muslims are deriding other people's beliefs, how do they expect to read some respectful remarks about Muhammad after refusing several time to heed the call to be mature in their inputs?

Now let me help you see what you guys have continued to miss.

First, I had to deal with Ahmed Deedat's false premises, because his articles and arguments have always been celebrated as "scholarly" - and no Muslim has exercised the dicipline to carefully examine whether or not Deedat was being honest to the facts on ground.

There were two basic issues to be settled in Deedat's rants:

(a) the meaning of "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek

(b) the Greek terms for God in John 1:1

As regards (a) above, Deedat denies that "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek means "word"; rather he asserts that "word" is a corrupt modern translation; and as I have demonstrated, Deedat was cheating his audience because we all know that he was not telling the truth. The source from Wiktionary shows indeed that "word" is one of the several meanings of "logos" in ancient Greek!

And as regards (b) above, the terms theos (Θεός) and theon (Θεόν) both mean "God". What Deedat had tried to do is yet cheat his audience again by making only "ton theon" or (ho theos) the "proper way" of referring to "God"! That is as absurd as any cheat can make it sound - because he has not carefully examine Greek grammar rules; nor does any one of his adulators understand Greek!

This is why I left those teasers earlier so that anyone who has the basic understanding of Greek with its grammar rules can then see how false Deedat was! Do you care to take this assignment to test your knowledge of Greek:

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

By the time you examine those verses, you will find indeed the surprising this is that there are several Greek terms used for "God" rather than just those two that we have been examining!!

The question to ask is WHY these various Greek terms instead of just one? The reason is simple enough for those who understand Greek - they are derived from the Greek tenses; and below are examples of a few of these terms:


Nominative Θεός

Genitive Θεού

Dative Θεώ

Accusative θεον

Vocative Θεέ

These are just a few of those Greek terms for "God"; and you can see that so far, we have only been looking at two Greek terms - the 'Accusative' (θεον) and the 'Nominative' (Θεός) cases in John 1:1. This is why I requested that we examine other verses in the same John's Gospel and see why Deedat and co have been cheating people all along!

I never boasted of being a Greek expert - but I know enough Greek to expose the fraud that Muslims have been noising about all this while! That is why I have thrown the challenge to any - I mean, any - Muslim scholar who boast the basic of the Greek language to come forward and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an!! Is that too hard for you guys? For someone as dunce and dense as olabowale to keep slurring the Trinity and then castigating me on what he does not have a clue about, is the reason why I will no longer put up with such illiterate behaviour from him!

@holythug,

holythug:

well, you're in darkness & will never undastand

I'm not in darkness, as you can see from my rejoinder just above. If you can show me how you or any other person would bend the rules of Greek grammar to throw out the true meaning of "Θεός, Θεού, θεον, Θεώ, Θεέ, θεοίς, θεοί, and Θεών" (which are all terms for "God", then you may have made an impact! That indeed would require that you inform the Greeks that they never knew their own language until Ahmed Deedat opened his mouth and confused the Muslims who have been celebrating his false assertions!

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί

Θεών ?!?

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

You see, I would like to answer your questions - if and only if you are genuinely interested in finding out the truth! The dubious attitude of folks like olabowale will make me tell them to their face that they need to go and weep for their lies!

However, even though you have tried to offer some definitions and lexical explanations of some Greek terms for deity (which may be interpreted as "god, goddess" etc. depending on the tenses and context), I would like you to know that the general definitions do not provide the contextual meaning of each term. If you are to apply the rules of Greek grammar, what would you post as the Greek equivalent of the following terms:

godfearing (or 'god-fearing')?

godly (or godliness)?

godforsaken?

godless?

godlike?

I think you need to calm down and look again at two things when discussing Greek translations:

(a) application

(b) context

To argue from a general definition does not mean that you have arrived at the answers to very intriguing questions! That is what I am confident of dealing with in this query on John 1:1!!

Now if you make an example of applying a Greek term for "God" and say, you want to state the following:

glory be to God on high

. . . how would you express that in Greek, and what Greek term for "God" would you use? If you are willing to find out the gist of my discussion on this, please consult any sincere Greek speaker or literate person, and he/she would point out to you that the statement "glory be to God on high" is written in Greek this way:

δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ!

Why is this so? Because I have applied the correct grammatical rule of Greek (in this case the 'Dative' - Θεώ) so that the Greek speaker or listener is not confused about what I just said. Certainly, I would not say "δόξα εν υψίστοις τον θεον" - and if you wrote that to any Greek literate person, he is bound to wonder if you're insane - because you would have used the 'accusative' case (θεον) to make yourself the "God" in that statement!

Later on, I'll show you guys how simple Greek really is! I'm just too amazed that Muslims who pretend a scholarship they do not possess have been using such illiterate rants to deceive and dehumanize their audience!

Shalom.

Lol, i wouldn't be so quick to think holythug wrote that by himself. I can bet my left nut he "dubbed" his response from one of 'em sites.

Simply take a look at his pattern of writing and that of the plagiarised material. 't ain't hard to tell. . .

@Wordsmith,

Wordsmith:

Simply take a look at his pattern of writing and that of the plagiarised material. 't ain't hard to tell. . .

Of course, I knew he was rubber-dubbing the material from some site or the other - and that's why I so thanked him for it! Unlike his predecessors, he was generous enough to post a larger portion of Deedat's rants, which I had already seen in these cites:

Sbeel-al-I'slam,

[url=http://www.jews-for-god.org/Jews-and-Great Ones-Agree/no-trinity.htm]Jews-for-Allāh[/url],

Answering-Christianity.com.

My style is not to scuttle here and there looking for materials to cop-out from anyone (unless where it was necessary for me to help them verify the points I was making - as in the case of Wiktionary on "logos".

Just to help them stay steady and on course with this subject, I've decided to help them curtail their truancy with this small assignment:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

   John 3:16    John 8:41
   John 14:1    John 3:17
   John 21:19   John 3:21

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Certainly, if they are smart enough, they would give it a try - but we can be sure they won't even attempt it, because they'd then see the cheat that Deedat was!

Of course, those are not the only verses in the New Testament that I hope to examine on the Greek terms for God; but by the time we get somewhere along in the discussion, dem go see Muhammad for wetin he actually be!

@Stimulus:

First, I had to deal with Ahmed Deedat's false premises, because his articles and arguments have always been celebrated as "scholarly" - and no Muslim has exercised the dicipline to carefully examine whether or not Deedat was being honest to the facts on ground.

There were two basic issues to be settled in Deedat's rants:

(a) the meaning of "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek

(b) the Greek terms for God in John 1:1

As regards (a) above, Deedat denies that "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek means "word"; rather he asserts that "word" is a corrupt modern translation; and as I have demonstrated, Deedat was cheating his audience because we all know that he was not telling the truth. The source from Wiktionary shows indeed that "word" is one of the several meanings of "logos" in ancient Greek!

And as regards (b) above, the terms theos (Θεός) and theon (Θεόν) both mean "God". What Deedat had tried to do is yet cheat his audience again by making only "ton theon" or (ho theos) the "proper way" of referring to "God"! That is as absurd as any cheat can make it sound - because he has not carefully examine Greek grammar rules; nor does any one of his adulators understand Greek!

Adulators; Muslims or christians? Its got to be the Christians! No wonder, there is no shame in your vocabulary. I guess you no christian told you that the core message of Muhammad was Laa ila ha ilallah. Only this was his objesctive for 13 years in Makka. Before I continue, I need to translate that to a language that you understand, your mother tongue, lest you accuse the Muslims of sticking to Arabic alone: Ko si oba to to sin afi Oba Oluwa nikon! Muhammad never stopped there, but the last 10 years after Makka, in Madina, Muhammad never stopped and he died on this principle.

And for good indication of the iconoclastic quality of Islam towards idol worshipping, at conquest of makka, the only toppled, were the 360 Idols stockpiled into ka'aba. Then al Uzza was destroyed and the person who was behind it was killed. And the leasership of Makka was not replaced whereas we see that before then and after this conquest, every victory, always replaced the leadership of the vanquished people who they toppled. We see how the U. S. replaced saddam Hussein, upon victorious of the Iraqi Army.

If all the Muslims foundamentally do worship One God whose proper name is Allah in Arabic, I wonder how you will explain or what will you call your christian religion but Idolatry, since you worship more than one god, but gods, who you claim were all there in existence before the beginning of creation? It is ironic that the action of Ibrahiim who destroyed all the gods of his people but putting the axe on the shoulder of the biggest and the only remaining god, though noble and just, kinda remind me of your claim that your small god was also killed, yet the world did not come to an end. Nothing happened upon this sudden death. You know what except that there was no death and he was not a real God. You see the Muslim god, which is One, does not die, never tired, and never fatigued.

This is the different between between us, who serve a real God, unlike you who worship many gods. I guess in this case largeness in number does not mean truth.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Adulators; Great Ones or christians? Its got to be the Christians!

Where have Christians been plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat? Or are you such an empty head now that you are trying so hard to deflect this thread? Please don't even try to patronize me with this nonsense - from start to finish, the Muslim rascal and illiterate attitude you guys have been putting up is about to end! By the time we get there, you will see Muhammad for the false prophet that he was.

olabowale:

No wonder, there is no shame in your vocabulary.

I've tolerated your nonsense for far too long, olabowale. Since you cannot contain yourself any longer after several appeals to show deference in your language and have seen it as your birthright to constantly slur the Trinity, this is the one thread I intend to discuss that subject in detail and demonstrate the fallacies in Deedat's argument to show up the Muslim propaganda in your arguments. Please stay on course.

olabowale:

I guess you no christian told you that the core message of The Great Prophet was Laa ila ha ilallah. Only this was his objesctive for 13 years in Makka.

Then it must have been a poor errand he ran for 13 years! No wonder after you guys have been knocking your heads on the ground for over 14 centuries, you still haven't been cured of your illiterate rants. Now you're grovelling about my language and the otiose Laa-la-la yada-yada that has done no man any good!

olabowale:

Before I continue, I need to translate that to a language that you understand, your mother tongue, lest you accuse the Great Ones of sticking to Arabic alone: Ko si oba to to sin afi Oba Oluwa nikon! The Great Prophet never stopped there, but the last 10 years after Makka, in Madina, The Great Prophet never stopped and he died on this principle.

Don't make me laugh, olabowale! Your "great prophet" died with his curses upon himself! This is what exactly happens to false prophets who try to disparage the biblical prophets and want to murder people for their beliefs. What about the redemption of his soul? Have you forgotten what I posted to you in the other thread about the meaning of God being known as FATHER (creative, redemptive, and covenant rights of God over His people)? Muhammad rejected the only means of his redemption by qualifying himself as a false prophet - and this thread will lead you step by step to see his sad adventures.

olabowale:

And for good indication of the iconoclastic quality of The Great Religion towards idol worshipping, at conquest of makka, the only toppled, were the 360 Idols stockpiled into ka'aba. Then al Uzza was destroyed and the person who was behind it was killed.

Yea, and for all that, The Great Prophet retained one of his choice idol from Kaa'ba - allāh! No wonder Muslims have lied for eons about the Kaa'ba being traced to Adam or Abraham and yet they cannot show how this has been so as a historical fact! Make una continue to face East and get more confused.

olabowale:

And the leasership of Makka was not replaced whereas we see that before then and after this conquest, every victory, always replaced the leadership of the vanquished people who they toppled. We see how the You. S. replaced saddam Hussein, upon victorious of the Iraqi Army.

What has all this harrumph got to do with the Greek that you cannot decode on John 1:1? You think you're smart by trying ever so hard to deflect this subject? You will need an Arabian miracle to shift the focus of this thread - and it does not matter how many of you will swarm this thread with endless stories and cover-up tactics, just let me warn you ahead of time: NONE of your gimmicks will prove effective in this thread!

olabowale:

If all the Great Ones foundamentally do worship One God whose proper name is God in Arabic,

"God" is not an Arabic word - I keep telling you guys that! See how the efforts of your bellicose and billigerent Muslim brothers threatening fatwa on Nairaland has helped us to drop 'Allāh'? I will say it again -- 'allah' has been dropped from Nairaland and now we are reading "God" all the more! Just type 'Allah' in your posts, and gbam! - you no go see am again!

olabowale:

I wonder how you will explain or what will you call your christian religion but Idolatry, since you worship more than one god, but gods, who you claim were all there in existence before the beginning of creation?

Thank you - this is how to discuss! You slur my Christian faith as 'idolatry' and expect me to swallow that, abi? Then you come back complaining about my language! Good. Olabowale, you go see pepper for this thread - I haven't started with you yet!

If you want to discuss, make your points without recourse to slurring the Christian faith! Failure to heed this call will help us show you in like manner what exactly Muhammad and his god were!

This is the last time I will offer that warning - it's up to you to school up or continue to be such a retard!

olabowale:

It is ironic that the action of Ibrahiim who destroyed all the gods of his people but putting the axe on the shoulder of the biggest and the only remaining god, though noble and just, kind of remind me of your claim that your small god was also killed, yet the world did not come to an end.

Thank you for the "small god" appellation - a fine way to address my faith. The tales of Muhammad are insignificant to my discourses, so I'll just throw that garboil out and bring you back on course.

olabowale:

Nothing happened upon this sudden death. You know what except that there was no death and he was not a real God. You see the Great One god, which is One, does not die, never tired, and never fatigued.

Your 'Allāh' was a wussy who was crying that the (unnamed) son of Adam had "hurt" him (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Num. 351). You may claim all sorts for this 'allah'-coverup about not growing tired or fatigued, etc. . . but can you explain why the same wussy was whimpering along with his slave Muhammad so much so that the slave had to plot the murder of someone (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 270)?

I don tell you, olabowale - your slurring of the Trinity will only invite what will make you go home and weep with your wussy 'Allah'. You want to discuss, do so; but if your aim is to be derisive and then show up your empty skull on this subject, no wahala!

You're using such panic measures to try ever so hard to deflect this thread - as if that will atone for the fact that Deedat, you and all who have plagiarized him are dunces. You can't mangle another man's language and pretend a scholarship you clearly do not possess, and then celebrate a huge LIE from place to place! That lie is what you will find exposed in this thread; and no matter how vexed you can be with your illiterate remarks, you will not be able to divert the discussion to something else.

olabowale:

This is the different between between us, who serve a real God, unlike you who worship many gods. I guess in this case largeness in number does not mean truth.

Was it not your own Muslim bother who was boasting about largeness of numbers in the other thread? You guys are so inconsistent - and if your 'Lai-la-la-yada-yada' is all you can produce for your dense IQ, you are about to wake up from a rude sleep!

@olabowale,

Please don't run like a scampered wussy - face the subject of this thread, for that is why I brought you guys here in the first place. I've dealt with Deedat's rants about the Greek words in John 1:1 without evading any point in the parts you and babs787 plagiarized.

Following that, I did not solicit for your story rumbles; rather I left you a simple assignment:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Has that proven so difficult for your ummah to even attempt? Unfortunately, Deedat is late and it's impossible for you to consult him for adjustments. Or, probably, the smart ones among you have quickly taken a peep and discovered indeed that there are huge holes in Deedat's rants.

Whatever is the case, please save your senseless stories for your clan - because the more you attempt deflecting this thread, the more you're likely to read me zipping up your otiose remarks.

If you're waffling or jibbing out of this discussion for your inability to hold your ground in the Greek language, do so graciously and save your yellow teeth from further exposure. If you're confident of making any meaningful rejoinders, I'd be glad to consider it.

Do you care to deal with the issues of this thread?

Somebody already asked you, to give provide us with a definition of your God: Is your God Jesus, or the holy spirit or the father?

He also said if he were to meet a Christian Greek and to ask him; Whats the name of your God, will the greek give the name as Tontheon or Theos, since he need to chose just one?

For me my God's name and it is a proper name without any ambiquity is Allah! Deal with it. To be wating my time from Trinity, which was a our agreement to john Verse (which is like side show bob of the Simpson cartoon show fame), is a divertion tactics. I am sick of your game, either fish or cut bait.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Somebody already asked you, to give provide us with a definition of your God: Is your God Jesus, or the holy spirit or the father?

I will come to that question in the course of our discussion, so no rush ahead or diversion. I left you an assignment; and I will not be moved by your defelction tactics.

olabowale:

He also said if he were to meet a Christian Greek and to ask him; Whats the name of your God, will the greek give the name as Tontheon or Theos, since he need to chose just one?

Did the questioner tell you he knew Greek?

You see why I have directly challenged the assertion that you guys often make about Arabic being a "pure" language and all sorts? You can't let another man speak his own language; but you try to slave yourself on Deedat's rants. It is the same rants that I intend to focus here as well as lead you to your own assumptions to show you what you have no clues about!

olabowale:

For me my God's name and it is a proper name without any ambiquity is God!

Since when did "God" become an Arabic term? You 'allah' has no name but borrowed his appellation from a common term which pagans in pre-Islamic times have known and used. Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as "Allāh al-ab (الله الآب - God the FATHER)". If you have lost the name of your 'god', go and search for it and come back to inform us!

olabowale:

Deal with it. To be wating my time from Trinity, which was a our agreement to john Verse (which is like side show bob of the Simpson cartoon show fame), is a divertion tactics. I am sick of your game, either fish or cut bait.

You're a comedian unparalled! Did you blind your eyes when typing and failed to see the assignment I left you? Push your wagon all you want, you will have to deal with this assignment before we move on (or you can wake Deedat up from his grave to help you) - here again:

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

I'm waiting, olabowale.

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

I'm waiting, olabowale.

Alhaji olabowale, I'm patient - and still waiting!

Applause to Stimulus.
I am always so happy to see someone stand up to this[s] international association of blatant liars[/s] muslim ummah when they make claims they cannot substantiate. someone needs to remind them that not everyone is as gullible as they are. i can bet my bottom naira that nobody, repeat nobody, will answer your question.

If na me sha, shame for don catch me say i steal somebody article, pretend say na my own, only for some smart punk to completely floor my borrowed argument and prove that my scholarly mentor doesn't know zilch about what he wrote about.

stimulus:

@Wordsmith,

Of course, I knew he was rubber-dubbing the material from some site or the other - and that's why I so thanked him for it! Unlike his predecessors, he was generous enough to post a larger portion of Deedat's rants, which I had already seen in these cites:

Sbeel-al-I'slam,

[url=http://www.jews-for-god.org/Jews-and-Great Ones-Agree/no-trinity.htm]Jews-for-Allāh[/url],

Answering-Christianity.com.

My style is not to scuttle here and there looking for materials to cop-out from anyone (unless where it was necessary for me to help them verify the points I was making - as in the case of Wiktionary on "logos".

Just to help them stay steady and on course with this subject, I've decided to help them curtail their truancy with this small assignment:

Certainly, if they are smart enough, they would give it a try - but we can be sure they won't even attempt it, because they'd then see the cheat that Deedat was!

Of course, those are not the only verses in the New Testament that I hope to examine on the Greek terms for God; but by the time we get somewhere along in the discussion, dem go see Muhammad for wetin he actually be!

yes u can say dat again i dnt need a site or someone to tell me ow to defend my religion the only info i got frm d sites where d meanin aboout d greek words since it is not my mother tongue, being truthful to urself , tell me u got all those stuff frm ur cloudy brain @ word smith , bt wat am really concerned bout islam is dat it doesnt force any man to worship him, so i dont see any reason for dis

@Lafile:

Quote from: stimulus on February 18, 2008, 01:47 PM
Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:


  John 3:16    John 8:41
  John 14:1    John 3:17
  John 21:19   John 3:21

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

I'm waiting, olabowale.

Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
therationa: you'd 1st have to define 'atheism' before making Christians such


stimulus (m)
Posts: 1214

Offline

 Re: John 1 V 1 – λογος, Θεόν, Θεός - Word And God
« #22 on: Today at 07:43:58 AM »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alhaji olabowale, I'm patient - and still waiting!  

Report to moderator    Logged  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
therationa: you'd 1st have to define 'atheism' before making Christians such


lafile (m)
Festac Town, Lagos
Posts: 525

Offline

 Re: John 1:1 - LOGOS and THEOS
« #23 on: Today at 09:23:23 AM »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applause to Stimulus.
I am always so happy to see someone stand up to this international association of blatant liars a great one ummah when they make claims they cannot substantiate. someone needs to remind them that not everyone is as gullible as they are. i can bet my bottom naira that nobody, repeat nobody, will answer your question.

If na me sha, shame for don catch me say i steal somebody article, pretend say na my own, only for some smart punk to completely floor my borrowed argument and prove that my scholarly mentor doesn't know zilch about what he wrote about.

"PUNK," is not a term of endearment. I hope you and Stimulus who you referred as "PUNK," here know that! The reason am not wasting my time with stimulus is that we started with Trinity, he is taking me to John. I am not going to go from thread to thread with him. If he is so sure of Trinity, then lets dig into it on it at its thread.

@Holythug: May God make your way easy. Amiin. You see these people just say Jihad as if it is just fighting people. Jihad is stopping yourself from doing evil. And that is the biggest form of it. But I am sure it does not ring a bell on them, because they are always about id (the animal instinct).

Hi again @holythug,

holythug:

yes u can say that again i dnt need a site or someone to tell me ow to defend my religion

Oh, but you went to 'em sites to harvest those weak "defences" for your religion, aint it? Or, can you deny that you had inevitably harvested it from one of 'em sites that has been celebrating Deedat without the discipline to check out his rants prior to recycling them?

holythug:

the only info i got frm d sites where d meanin aboout d greek words since it is not my mother tongue,

And for all that, Deedat was wrong! Dead wrong - and false as false can be! This is why you guys should have calmed down and not pretend that plagiarizing Deedat and others to present on Nairaland as your own would have made you a scholar overnight!

At least, you're being honest that Greek is not your mothertongue (nor is it mine); but for your brethren to argue blindly without first having a basic knowledge of the language is only going to make them sound even more otiose! This is why I kept saying that I was never disappointed that you guys would duck my invitation to examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! If we are going to be honest, by the time we examine the garboil in that translation, your mullah will either recall it from the press, or have it banned altogether! That translation is an absolute falderal and trumpery!

holythug:

being truthful to yourself , tell me u got all those stuff frm your cloudy brain @ word smith,

I have never claimed to be a polyglot or expert of any language (including the English language); but if you can be true to yourself, why don't you simply post the link where I might have plagiarized them from?

You see why I decided to take this approach of debating this subject on my own? It is because I'm confident enough to speak and understand the language even if it is not my mothertongue - and when I read the texts, I can confidently agree with scholars in the language on some issues, or otherwise disagree with them and then point out why I think they are incorrect!

The problem with you gentlemen is that you often have to rely on people pretending to be "scholars", and as long as their fallacies make you happy, then you applaud and celebrate them by recycling their illiterate arguements!

holythug:

bt what am really concerned bout the great religion is that it doesnt force any man to worship him,

I don't want to derail the topic of this thread - LOGOS and THEOS - otherwise I would have taken you to task on that same false assertion! Please oblige me anyday and anytime to a relevant thread and let's see if indeed The Great Religion is not a violent religion designed to force people to bend to Muhammad!

holythug:

so i don't see any reason for this

The reason for this is to zip the redundant noise of your propagandist and let everybody rest from their lies! You cannot keep celebrating Deedat's lies against John 1:1 and noise it even in this Forum to ridicule Christianity. Somebody has to stand up against that rubbish and put the case to rest!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Lafile: "PUNK," is not a term of endearment. I hope you and Stimulus who you referred as "PUNK," here know that!

I perfectly understand lafile and have no quarrels with the term he used idiomatically. So don't even try to patronise us with your weasle cough. I can play with people as long as they make good sense; but I definitely object to your attitude to continue deriding the convictions of others simply because you do not agree with them. That is why I stopped entertaining your slurs and face you squarely on your own assumptions.

olabowale:

The reason am not wasting my time with stimulus is that we started with Trinity, he is taking me to John.

I brought the discussion from the thread on Trinity down here so that you guys will not be galivanting from thread to thread and littering the forum with your illiterate plagiarized articles! If you guys never wanted to discuss John's Gospel, then please tell me: WHY did you, and babs787, and holythug recycle that redundant argument from Deedat and bring it here? It is only when your arguments have been wasted that we see you abandoning ship and weasling at John's Gospel!

olabowale:

I am not going to go from thread to thread with him.

All the more reason why you should settle in one thread - this one - and prove your mettle!

olabowale:

If he is so sure of Trinity, then lets dig into it on it at its thread.

I have always met you anywhere; and the reason I brought this thread is to take it step by step and bring you to a logical end where you see Muhammad as naked as can be seen for the false prophet that he was! You guys have stayed on this redundant argument for long against the Trinity with blasphemous interjections and refused to heed the call to grow up - and that is why I'll be asking you guys to meet me on this very thread HERE and pour out your brains and consciences so we see where it will lead you!

olabowale:

@Holythug: May God make your way easy. Amiin. You see these people just say Jihad as if it is just fighting people. Jihad is stopping yourself from doing evil.

And stopping yourself from evil includes deriding the Trinity with reckless abandon, yes?

olabowale:

And that is the biggest form of it. But I am sure it does not ring a bell on them, because they are always about id (the animal instinct).

I won't humour you with deflective discourses, as I know that all this mewling is simply because you have wasted your intelligence and scooted away from the simple assignment I left you guys! Do you care to attend it now?

@lafile,

lafile:

Applause to Stimulus.
I am always so happy to see someone stand up to this[s] international association of blatant liars[/s] a great one ummah when they make claims they cannot substantiate. someone needs to remind them that not everyone is as gullible as they are.

Bo, my broda I don sidon dey look at the sorry adventures so tay I no fit keep quite again. How could these apprentices of the IABL ([s]international association of blatant liars[/s]) be making noise about what they have no clues, and think that such gimcrack codswallop is is the best that should be celebrated for the tastelessly showy skits they put up here?

lafile:

i can bet my bottom naira that nobody, repeat nobody, will answer your question.

Well, the answers are so simple to decode - but so far, you're absolutely right that none of them could even attempt it! Shame!

lafile:

If na me sha, shame for don catch me say i steal somebody article, pretend say na my own, only for some smart punk to completely floor my borrowed argument and prove that my scholarly mentor doesn't know zilch about what he wrote about.

No mind olabowale. . . Of all the sense you made, na only "punk" catch im attention! Yeye man!

Bo, na true you talk o jare! If na me sef, I for don change my username patapata and sneak in through the backdoor! The reason why I floated this thread is because I am so confident of taking them to task on this language - dem no go escape lai-lai!

Now, dear oga olabs, wetin do you now? WHY you dey diddle about and act like a slowbelly on the assignment wey I leave you? Your scholarship done finish on Greek?

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

I'm still waiting, olabowale.

@olabowale,

What happened to your scholarship on the Greek language that you’ve noised all along on the Forum? How could you be celebrating the illiterate noise of folks like Deedat without first checking out his assumptions before applauding him as a “scholar”? I didn’t bring you guys here to trip you up; but rather to afford you the opportunity to examine your own assumptions and assertions before drawing your conclusions to make others uneducated in their own language and culture because you happened to have slaved yourself on Deedat’s argument.

I'll take time to see how to help you guys understand these issues in my subsequent posts. If we aim for honest investigation of the assertions of others, we shall find it easy enough to drop the fallacies and amend our thinking accordingly where truth should prevail.

Cheers.