0tilføjet af

Svar til ....... jv08 ....... Re,; Ho THEOS!

´´
Det er noget Sprogforskere ved alt om - Jeg ved måske 1/2% - og Du måske lidt mere!
Det er 100% sikkert derfor de går på universitetet en del af deres liv -
Hvis det var så nemt, for knuder som dig og mig at "dechifrere" de gamle
tekster - Så¨skal nedenstående mennesker have deres skolepenge tilbage! - :-D
MEN re.: sprog og deres tolkning
Eksempel:
Får får får - får får ikke får får får lam!
For os er den sætning IKKE et problem, men spørg du en udlænding!

Nédenstående er der en grammatikalsk forklaring -
Men indrømmet - det er ikke noget jeg selv har brugt tid på, da jeg IKKE
har kunne finde andre links, så jeg kunne minimum dobbeltjekke sitets validitet!
http://www.jehovahswitnesstruth.com/john1_1.htm
Jeg håber at nedenstående Scholar's forklaringer har en kvalitet og en
tilstrækkelig lødighed der gør, at VI IKKE behøves anbefale dem et Sprogkursus! ;-)
Citat: ..................................................................................
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg
La Mirada, California:
"I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses
give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous"
and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's
Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. J. R. Mantey
(who is quoted in the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither
scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Phillip B. Harner
Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a
god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as
a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS"
is places at the beginning for emphasis."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. J. Johnson
California State University, Long Beach:
"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word
was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement
in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Eugene A. Nida,
Head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication
simply because the New World Translation was apparently done
by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek."
[Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski
Zurich, Switzerland:
"This anarthrous (used without the article) construction
does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English.
It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman
Portland, Oregon:
"The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance
of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William Barclay
The University of Glasgow, Scotland:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their
New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,'
a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that
a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell
The University of Chicago:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb;
it does not have the article when it precedes the berb...this statement cannot
be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax
in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Phillip B. Harner
Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS
was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category
of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually
uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. B. F. Wescott
(whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily
without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form
of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third
clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. J. J. Griesbach
(whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):
"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour
of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of
the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation,
this doctrin can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3,
is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either
commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Walter R. Martin
(who does not teach Greek but has studied the language):
"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported
by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation
rejected by all recongnized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even
Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Med venlig hilsen
jalmar
SuperDebat.dk er det tidligere debatforum på SOL.dk, som nu er skilt ud separat.