In The Beggining

Nathan P

Well-known member
It's not that simple.
Key is 'was' =eimi / nv = verb, imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular.

verb — A word that describes an action, state of being, or the production of a result.

imperfect — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being that is occurring in the past with no assessment of the action’s completion.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real.

third person — In grammar, “person” refers to the feature of verbs or pronouns that helps us distinguish

singular — Refers to one person or thing.

Seems the author is conveying absolute existence.

Also note eimi is Imperfect Active Indicative
"We were eating" in the following sentence would be expressed using the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek.

Imperfect Active Indicative

We were eating dinner when my sister arrived. "Were' Imperfect Active Indicative. In the beginning was the Word. Was =Imperfect Active Indicative.

the primary function of the imperfect tense is to convey imperfective (progressive) verbal aspect in narrative past-time contexts

imperfect Tense

The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

John is stating = at that millisecond when the beginning commenced Jesus was already existing.
Fyi it occurred in the past in the beginning and no matter how the trin people want to cut it is not talking about before the timeframe of in the beginning there.
 

Nathan P

Well-known member
LOL! Nope. Your post above is either outright delusion or intentional, deliberate falsehood - Here's why that's true: The recorded posting history is that your posts haven't actually proven anything, in terms of anything real. You can imagine you've proven something all you wish, but that means absolutely nothing. The recorded posting history of this thread shows only denial and rejection on the part of your posts - nothing more - and I am VERY content to let any honest and fair-minded readers read and decide for themselves between us about this. NO problem.
Fine with me as I would win as you have not explained your point.
 

Nathan P

Well-known member
It's not that simple.
Key is 'was' =eimi / nv = verb, imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular.

verb — A word that describes an action, state of being, or the production of a result.

imperfect — The verb tense where the writer portrays an action in process or a state of being that is occurring in the past with no assessment of the action’s completion.

active — The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject is performing the verbal action or is in the state described by the verb.

indicative — The mood in which the action of the verb or the state of being it describes is presented by the writer as real.

third person — In grammar, “person” refers to the feature of verbs or pronouns that helps us distinguish

singular — Refers to one person or thing.

Seems the author is conveying absolute existence.

Also note eimi is Imperfect Active Indicative
"We were eating" in the following sentence would be expressed using the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek.

Imperfect Active Indicative

We were eating dinner when my sister arrived. "Were' Imperfect Active Indicative. In the beginning was the Word. Was =Imperfect Active Indicative.

the primary function of the imperfect tense is to convey imperfective (progressive) verbal aspect in narrative past-time contexts

imperfect Tense

The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

John is stating = at that millisecond when the beginning commenced Jesus was already existing.
Ho on is not included there because ego eimi by itself is not what carries the idea of eternal self existence. It is the ho on that does.
 

keiw

Well-known member
Thank you. The Trinity is not the topic but Col1:15-16
Please address
Re post. According to the WTS every translation of the NWT and the Diaglott was done from ancient manuscripts. They are not claiming that they were bias towards WTS doctrine when they translated. What is now different in the manuscripts that 'other' applies.

Gods truth is what they applied.
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
Fyi it occurred in the past in the beginning and no matter how the trin people want to cut it is not talking about before the timeframe of in the beginning there.
Ho on is not included there because ego eimi by itself is not what carries the idea of eternal self existence. It is the ho on that does.
Let’s take this logic and apply it to John 1:1. I am standing at the railroad crossing, ‘the beginning.’ The track runs north to south. North of the rr crossing is the physical and temporal, south of the rr crossing is the eternal and the spiritual. I am looking south as the train is passing, ‘eimi ho logos’. Using the imperfect where is the train in relation to the rr crossing [the beginning]? Both sides, before and after the rr crossing [the beginning]. It is not the imperfect that conveys the idea of an eternal train but its relation to the rr crossing [the beginning].
 

Nathan P

Well-known member
Let’s take this logic and apply it to John 1:1. I am standing at the railroad crossing, ‘the beginning.’ The track runs north to south. North of the rr crossing is the physical and temporal, south of the rr crossing is the eternal and the spiritual. I am looking south as the train is passing, ‘eimi ho logos’. Using the imperfect where is the train in relation to the rr crossing [the beginning]? Both sides, before and after the rr crossing [the beginning]. It is not the imperfect that conveys the idea of an eternal train but its relation to the rr crossing [the beginning].
The point is since Ho on is not included ego eimi does not carry the idea of eternal self existence. And it is not the beginning and instead it is "in the beginning".
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Yes, Nathan, I have. All anyone needs to do is follow my posts in this thread - in particular the posts that have the word or concept of "self evident" in them. And there are others. You can reject and deny this all you wish, but that means absolutely nothing.
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
The point is since Ho on is not included ego eimi does not carry the idea of eternal self existence. And it is not the beginning and instead it is "in the beginning".
Its not ego eimi but eimi. And yes, Greek "in beginning" translated as "in the beginning". But its irrelevant. Why? Because 'In the beginning" is anytime from the first millisecond to the last millisecond. And when the first millisecond occurred 'eimi ho Logos' Jesus has been existing in the eternal.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
They were lead by holy spirit as Jesus promised would lead them into all truth.

LOL! You have just stated that the JW masters were led by the Holy Spirit to intentionally, deliberately ADD to the Scriptures. You are declaring that the Sprit of God led them to intentionally, deliberately CHANGE the word of God - That is your statement and position.
A reasonable, rational, and biblical explanation is GREATLY needed for that.


And after you're done explaining that - Please DO explain how "a force, like electricity" (which is what the JWs believe about the Holy Spirit) did such a thing. Just HOW did "a force" "LEAD" them to do that?
 

Nathan P

Well-known member
Its not ego eimi but eimi. And yes, Greek "in beginning" translated as "in the beginning". But its irrelevant. Why? Because 'In the beginning" is anytime from the first millisecond to the last millisecond. And when the first millisecond occurred 'eimi ho Logos' Jesus has been existing in the eternal.
No because eimi means 1 to be present, to exist, to happen or to be. And it does not say eimi ho on and instead like you note it says eimi ho Logos.
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
They were lead by holy spirit as Jesus promised would lead them into all truth.
I am not arguing that they were not led by the HS.
Re post. What ancient manuscript(s) did the WTS source as God’s truth, as they were led by the HS, to justify applying (other) in Col. 1:15-16?
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
No because eimi means 1 to be present, to exist, to happen or to be. And it does not say eimi ho on and instead like you note it says eimi ho Logos.
note eimi is Imperfect Active Indicative.

"We were eating" in the following sentence would be expressed using the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek.

Imperfect Active Indicative

We were eating dinner when my sister arrived. "Were' Imperfect Active Indicative. In the beginning was the Word. Was =Imperfect Active Indicative.

the primary function of the imperfect tense is to convey imperfective (progressive) verbal aspect in narrative past-time contexts

imperfect Tense

The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

The imperfect does not show completion but no assessment of the action’s completion, or does it describe an action from its beginning but an action in process that is occurring in the past.
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
They were lead by holy spirit as Jesus promised would lead them into all truth.
1 Pe 3:15 But [d]sanctify [e]the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

God inspired Peter to write this. Simply stated, you should be able to defend what you believe, and promote as truth.
 

Nathan P

Well-known member
note eimi is Imperfect Active Indicative.

"We were eating" in the following sentence would be expressed using the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek.

Imperfect Active Indicative

We were eating dinner when my sister arrived. "Were' Imperfect Active Indicative. In the beginning was the Word. Was =Imperfect Active Indicative.

the primary function of the imperfect tense is to convey imperfective (progressive) verbal aspect in narrative past-time contexts

imperfect Tense

The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

The imperfect does not show completion but no assessment of the action’s completion, or does it describe an action from its beginning but an action in process that is occurring in the past.
It is talking about past time contexts . But it is talking about past time context in the beginning and not before the beginning because it says "in the beginning" and the trin people will do anything to make it say what fits their theory. Prove concretely it means John was referring to time before the beginning and do not say you believe he was talking about time before the beginning?
 

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
It is talking about past time contexts . But it is talking about past time context in the beginning and not before the beginning because it says "in the beginning" and the trin people will do anything to make it say what fits their theory. Prove concretely it means John was referring to time before the beginning and do not say you believe he was talking about time before the beginning?
The point in time John is referring to is the beginning. Again it encompasses time from the first millisecond to the last millisecond.
Eimi in the Imperfect Active Indicative The imperfect tense always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
 
Top