Search results

On Psalm 51:5, I think this was about Solomon.

like 1st day of the week instead of 1st of sabbaths.

@doctrox Interesting sig!

Edit: I mistakenly responded to you here. :( It would be from the Greek to English, perhaps even Latin. I would have to explain Gnosticism and demonstrate the Gnosticism. I am only in your imagination, KJV only. My apologies.

Gnostics of the classical era denied the humanity of Christ. And if you think Gnosticism is new to the New Testament English bible, I have news for you. Gnosticism is part of Christianity.

1. Usually, unlikely 2. Byzantine variants are often found in different TR years. 3. It is easy enough to make an exact copy. Many codexes with capital letters are a fraud. And copies of the LXX do exist without them.

Valentinian Gnosticism is part of Orthodox Christianity, in case everyone needs to know. For Valentinus says he saw a newborn babe, and questioned it to find out who it was. And the babe answered him saying that it was the Word. Thereupon, he adds to this a certain pompous tale, intending to...

No, they don't. Words are not powers., and the Messiah is not the power of the father. This is the teaching of most translations of John 1:1. The English is Valentinian Gnosticism.

But it is you who has the wrong conclusions, not me. Today's bible scholarship can't even make a translation which makes sense.

Go ahead and be confused then.

And what if the authorities are wrong and inconsistent more than 75% of the time. It is hard to be in error even 100% of the time. I admit lexicon having been based on Latin have been. Latin didn't have an article; this alone implies all languages before needed an indefinite article instead.

The authorities are wrong. The article is an indefinite article, and that is the true rule. Applications of arthrousness are also inconsistent so far.

Name are not introduced in English with a definite article. An idefinite article or determiner serves this purpose. YHWH has the blood of the yearling lamb/goat on his sword. Many of which you give are not so. Aristotle says its a function of grammar including prepositions. Whatever. What...

No, it's indefinite. A noun, or onoma either has an indefinite article or not. Personal names are not indefinite in Greek, but do not carry the article, same as in Hebrew. Which means it does not need an introductory definite article. You have it all backward. The beginning is already...

It is indefinite and make more sense that way as an introducing article. It isn't consistent to say in the beginning unless the article is indefinite. I made a typo. Everything which can be stated according to Greek letters individually can be a word or rather LOGOS. But the word that is the...

It is not a definitive article. Rather, you repeated scholarly error which has persisted for at least 4 centuries. Whatever... But saying in a beginning is wrong under old scholarship also. This is inconsistent. In fact, it ignores that many old languages don't need a definite article, but...

@Justified said It can ever be "a god." You just assumed that I wouldn't translate it "the God." The theos is not being used in any English sense as you might think. Furthermore, the Greek of John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν means, in the beginning, it was...

Scholarly are wrong about the Greek article. It is an indefinite article. I can argue it is them which don't accept the reality. Granted, it is an honest mistake based on middle age English syntax.

Actually, I am rediscovering the syntax. Why trust the "theologians"?

It won't do you any good.