The "gods" of John 10:34-35

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma.

Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, therefor no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence "All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Again, "All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." categorically denies the possibility that he was created.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.

"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
Are you still arguing that Louw-Nida is wrong when they say:

It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1.3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.'
 
Are you still arguing that Louw-Nida is wrong when they say:

It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1.3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.'

I don't necessarily agree with their opinion, but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Why won't you deal with all the failures of your argument found in my extended response?

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, therefor no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Again,
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." categorically denies the possibility that he was created.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.

"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 
That is the height of dishonesty. You can’t even say the name of your god(s) without recourse to outside sources. Show us where the bible says God is a Trinity or Jesus is God the Son.For starters.

Critiques based upon category errors are not meaningful. Trinity is a term coined after the fact to describe the doctrine taught in Scripture. Civic is critiquing Rodger's inability to just stick with the text while interpreting the text. These are not the same thing. One is biblical interpretation; the other is theological systemizing. That being said, Roger finds ways to twist the text from other sources. Such is rightly critiqued even if Civic is equally guilty of similar errors.

God Bless
 
What he doesn't admit or understand is that what he refers to as "the Bible" is a secondary source. Anyone can attempt to prove a point by selecting a particular English Bible translation they like for that point and a different one for another subject.

Seriously? Civic isn't picking particular translations to make a theological point. On the other hand, you are, as a lay person who clearly doesn't know his Greek, manufacturing your own translation to arrive at your dogma: χωρὶς means except for; created/made depending on what excuse your employing for your dogmatic perspective. and by him/God being added to change what the text is talking about to make your theology possible.

Of course if a rebuttal uses a different Bible translation, even if it's Trinitarian, he rejects it.

This is your response before you take up his challenge? Why don't you pick your translation and exegete the text? Answer: no translation allows for your dogma, because the underline Greek text doesn't teach your heresies.

And as for BDAG, it's equivalent to a Bible translation in its glosses for a particular verse. It's on the same level as a secondary source. A bit better IMHO as much of the time they also give reasons to support it.

Funny you say that given your rejection of BDAG's definition of χωρὶς and ζωὴ in John 1:3-4. In reality, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel trumps BDAG in every way when it comes to understanding the meaning of words in the NT. BDAG is a lexicon; Kittel is a Dictionary.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Funny you say that given your rejection of BDAG's definition of χωρὶς and ζωὴ in John 1:3-4. In reality, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel trumps BDAG in every way when it comes to understanding the meaning of words in the NT. BDAG is a lexicon; Kittel is a Dictionary.

God Bless

TDNT is a theological work with commentaries by Trinitarians.

It's not intended to be more faithful to the language than theology, like real lexicon.
 
Funny you say that given your rejection of BDAG's definition of χωρὶς and ζωὴ in John 1:3-4. In reality, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel trumps BDAG in every way when it comes to understanding the meaning of words in the NT. BDAG is a lexicon; Kittel is a Dictionary.
TDNT is a theological work with commentaries by Trinitarians.

It's not intended to be more faithful to the language than theology, like real lexicon.

So let me get this straight, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue tp completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools? Talk about being disingenuous.

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.

"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to
"the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So let me get this straight, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue tp completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools? Talk about being disingenuous.

All you did is throw out the name. TDNT is not the same as a lexicon. It's a Dictionary where commentaries are free to peddle their views and are under no compulsion to evaluate all the evidence


Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text,

Lol! That's been true all along. However Louw-Nida does say all things were created by God through the Word. And it's hilarious to see such indignation when I add the interpretive note from a Trinitarian lexicon. I'm justified clarifying this as there are many on CARM who insist that the Word and not God is the Cre



and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma.

Blame Louw-Nida.
Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.

"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.
I'm actually not dogmatic on that point. Both senses are possible and neither prevents the NA punctuation from interpreting "What was created [by God] in him was life" from being his own life.

That is because the all things that were created [by God] through him does not included what was created [by God] in him.
 
So let me get this straight, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue tp completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools? Talk about being disingenuous.
All you did is throw out the name. TDNT is not the same as a lexicon. It's a Dictionary where commentaries are free to peddle their views and are under no compulsion to evaluate all the evidence

So, you are just going to double down on your baseless condemnation of Kittel. What evidence do you have for any of this? Oh yeah, you don't justify your assertions.

Again, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue to completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools?



Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text,
Lol! That's been true all along. However Louw-Nida does say all things were created by God through the Word.

However nothing. "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,

And it's hilarious to see such indignation when I add the interpretive note from a Trinitarian lexicon. I'm justified clarifying this as there are many on CARM who insist that the Word and not God is the Creator.

Blame Louw-Nida.

Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember, χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.

BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.
I'm actually not dogmatic on that point. Both senses are possible and neither prevents the NA punctuation from interpreting "What was created [by God] in him was life" from being his own life.

That is because the all things that were created [by God] through him does not included what was created [by God] in him.

This isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it. BTW, the text doesn't say "What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Again,
Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So, you are just going to double down on your baseless condemnation of Kittel. What evidence do you have for any of this? Oh yeah, you don't justify your assertions.

Again, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue to completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools?




However nothing. "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text
to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,



Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember, χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.



This isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of
χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it. BTW, the text doesn't say "What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Again,
Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
Ur kinda wordy for someone who keeps repeating himself.
 
Ur kinda wordy for someone who keeps repeating himself.
Then maybe you should answer me. You are clearly abusing these resources; shouldn't you respond to these accusations? At this point, one must assume your refusal to answer is linked to embarrassment. You know you have nothing to stand on theologicall, and your too embarrassed to admit your abuse.

Again,
So, you are just going to double down on your baseless condemnation of Kittel. What evidence do you have for any of this? Oh yeah, you don't justify your assertions.

Again, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue to completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools?

However nothing. "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,

Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember,
χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.

BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of
χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it. BTW, the text doesn't say "What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to
"the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Then maybe you should answer me. You are clearly abusing these resources; shouldn't you respond to these accusations? At this point, one must assume your refusal to answer is linked to embarrassment. You know you have nothing to stand on theologicall, and your too embarrassed to admit your abuse.

Again,
So, you are just going to double down on your baseless condemnation of Kittel. What evidence do you have for any of this? Oh yeah, you don't justify your assertions.

Again, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue to completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools?

However nothing. "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,

Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember,
χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.

BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of
χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it. BTW, the text doesn't say "What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to
"the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
TDNT/TDOT have some great scholarship in them and very complete data for each period. However, their conclusions are generally dubious. The linguistic theory underlying them has been shown wanting [e.g. that a word's single appearance carries the sum total of its etymological and historical weight]. Many scholars are now avoiding them for that reason [or just carefully picking and choosing what they use].


Rod Decker​

Posted January 18, 2011
Tim's reply is on target. TDNT has lots of data, but its methodology is deficient. For NT study, BDAG is indispensable and worth every penny of the $150 (list). It would be worth it at double the price. There is no other resource remotely comparable to the wealth of info contained in it. It is not perfect, but it's the best available. Perhaps you'd find my page devoted to BDAG helpful; it contains a variety of resources including an early draft of the "how to use BDAG" essay that appears in my Koine Reader. You can find it here: NTResources.com/bdag.html
 

civic

Well-known member
Then maybe you should answer me. You are clearly abusing these resources; shouldn't you respond to these accusations? At this point, one must assume your refusal to answer is linked to embarrassment. You know you have nothing to stand on theologicall, and your too embarrassed to admit your abuse.

Again,
So, you are just going to double down on your baseless condemnation of Kittel. What evidence do you have for any of this? Oh yeah, you don't justify your assertions.

Again, you're more than willing to discount serious word study tools for the Greek language because such undermines your dogmatic concerns, and you'll continue to completely ignore all errors you've made using your preferred tools?

However nothing. "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,

Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember,
χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.

BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of
χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it. BTW, the text doesn't say "What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to
"the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
Since his Greek is lacking then we know his knowledge gleaned from lexical sources is suspect as best.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Two questions (for the Trinitarians):

I don't know if you got a direct answer to this yet, but here is my understanding...

1) Are the "gods" mentioned at John 10:34(, ie, the "gods" of Psalm 82:6) 'true gods or false gods'?

They are false gods.
The Psalmist is addressing corrupt evil judges of Israel who are abusing the authority that God gave them to issue judgments. That's why they are rebuked, and contrasted with one true God who is Lord over all.

2) How does quoting Psalm 82:6 help Jesus prove that "he is Deity"?

I don't believe that was His purpose in quoting the Psalm. As I said, Ps. 82 is an imprecatory psalm intended to rebuke/condemn the corrupt judges of Israel. I believe Jesus was using that Psalm to rebuke the Pharisees.

Now, you may claim I'm dodging the question, because I didn't give you the answer you were looking for, but as a teacher, I can certainly understand why Jesus would do this. When you're trying to teach someone something, and especially when the "student" thinks they are more knowledgeable, you will see that their line of questioning goes in the wrong direction, and the teacher needs to redirect to get everyone back on course.

A good example of this is "Sovereign Citizens". These are people who don't register their cars, and try to argue with cops when they get pulled over by asking them all kinds of irrelevant questions, trying to justify not being held the law just like everyone else. The cop can't simply let him take control of the situation and answer every question, he has a job to do, so he has to redirect discussion to what is needed to be done.
 
TDNT/TDOT have some great scholarship in them and very complete data for each period. However, their conclusions are generally dubious. The linguistic theory underlying them has been shown wanting [e.g. that a word's single appearance carries the sum total of its etymological and historical weight]. Many scholars are now avoiding them for that reason [or just carefully picking and choosing what they use].


Rod Decker​

Posted January 18, 2011
Tim's reply is on target. TDNT has lots of data, but its methodology is deficient. For NT study, BDAG is indispensable and worth every penny of the $150 (list). It would be worth it at double the price. There is no other resource remotely comparable to the wealth of info contained in it. It is not perfect, but it's the best available. Perhaps you'd find my page devoted to BDAG helpful; it contains a variety of resources including an early draft of the "how to use BDAG" essay that appears in my Koine Reader. You can find it here: NTResources.com/bdag.html

So when I ask for evidence, you present the opinion of another who only says "it its methodology is deficient". That's far, far from a robust answer. "a word's single appearance carries the sum total of its etymologic and historical weight"? Seriously? Who believes that? Definitely not the writers of these dictionaries. Such would undermine the need for a dictionary in the first place. The whole point is to see the development and use of a term over time as to understand what meanings make sense in a particular context. "carefully pick and choose"? That's the point of these dictionaries. You consider all the information and weed through it to discover the hidden gems. It sounds like you heard someone's opinion and ran with that before you considered the merits of the dictionaries.

So after wasting our time discussing a truly meaningless topic in the grand scheme of things, when are you going to answer for your serious errors below?

Again, "By God" not in the text, and you adding it into the text to change what the text is saying as to justify your dogma. Louw-Nida's interpretation doesn't change what the text is saying, but your's does. That's why you stand condemned for changing Scripture for dogmatic reasons,

Hello? Louw-Nida's interpretation is the Trinitarian framework. We are reacting against you modifying it so as to minimize the Word into a passive tool God used as opposed to the active agent creating for the Father as the text depicts. Remember,
χωρὶς in John 1:3 means without or apart from someone's activities or assistance. Maybe, you shouldn't twist resources as to pretend Scripture teaches your heresies.

BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of
χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance isn't a point of dogma; it's a statement of fact about a lexicon. You are the one claiming BDAG is on your side, but when push comes to shove, you're willing to throw out anything to protect your all important dogma. Without BDAG's backing, you need to justify your understanding of χωρὶς is applicable, not just assert it.

BTW, the text doesn't say
"What was created [by God] in him was life"; why are you interpreting a dogmatically modified text? Louw-Nida's footnote was about v3a, not v3c-4. Why are you adding it in v4? And, if 3b means "without or apart from the Word activities or assistance not one thing came into being", then logic tells us the Word could not have come into being. Therefore, it couldn't be the Word's personal life created in the Word in v3c-4. Nice job doubling down on the falsehoods.

Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma. Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a, found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret
χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, and therefore no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.

And, the sentence
"All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a possible greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.

"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.

The clause
"apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."

I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to
"the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming"Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?

God Bless
 
Top