john 20.28 nom for nom.

Der Alte · Sep 7, 2013

2ducklow said:
It is often argued that in classical Greek the nominative is sometimes used for the vocative, So Greek poets fudged with greek grammar to make it rhyme, English poets do the same thing, but that doesn't happen in the bible as far as I know and certainly it's not hte case in john 20.28. It has been argued that Thomas use the articular nominative in john 20.28 because he was being respectufl when addressing Jesus as God, but that argument falls apart when we consider matthew 27.46 wherein Jesus addressed God in the vocative. If the argument were true, it would mean that Jesus spoke to God without respect. Plus the only verse in the entire bible where it is argued that Jesus was addressed as God in the nominative out of a sense of respect is john 20.28. Image that.

Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, Syntax of the simple sentence, Nominative Case, chapter 12

NOTE; Gildersleeve is a well respected scholor from the 19th century who was a professor very knowledgeable about NT Greek and Classical Greek, he was a professor at some high class college like Yale or something, I forget exactly which one.

Koine Greek derived from classical Greek and is not exactly like classical.

Here is some information on Gildersleeve.

study under Johannes Franz in Berlin, under Friedrich Ritschl at Bonn and under Schneidewin at Göttingen, where he received his doctor's degree in 1853. From 1856 to 1876 he was professor of Greek at the University of Virginia, holding the chair of Latin also from 1861 to 1866.

After service for the Confederate States Army in the American Civil War, during which Gildersleeve was shot in the leg, he returned to the University of Virginia.[1] Ten years later, he accepted an offer from Daniel Coit Gilman of a position at Johns Hopkins University.

1880, the American Journal of Philology, a quarterly published by the Johns Hopkins University, was established under his editorial charge,

2ducklow · Sep 7, 2013

Here is another reason john 20.28 "the lord of me and t he God of me" cannot possibly be vocative.

What is the Vocative Case?

Names that are being addressed directly are said to be in the vocative case. When somebody is being spoken to directly, his/her name must be separated from the rest of the sentence with a comma (or commas).

Examples:

I'll see you next Tuesday, Alan.

(Alan is being addressed. His name must be separated from the rest of the sentence with a comma. The word Alan is said to be in the vocative case.)
(Vocative stems from the word vocal.)

…and that, your Honour, is the case for the Prosecution.

(The judge is being addressed as your Honour. These words are in the vocative case and must be separated from the rest of the sentence with commas.)

Lee, you would know all about that wouldn't you, you little adventurer?

(Lee is being addressed by his name and as you little adventurer. Both Lee and you little adventurer are in the vocative case.)

...and that was the end of the monster Dick.

(Dick should be preceded by a comma as Dick is being addressed.)

What is the vocative case?

the lord of me and the god of me cannot be vocative because there is no comma seperating it from the rest of the sentence. "the lord of me annd the God of me' is an incomplete sentence, no verb and no object. So all it can possibly be is the subject of a sentence where the verb and object are understood. or that it is a nominative of exclamation. (exclamations are incomplete sentences.)

Read more at What is the vocative case?

he-man · Sep 8, 2013

Der Alter said:
Koine Greek derived from classical Greek and is not exactly like classical.

Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

2ducklow said:
Here is another reason john 20.28 "the lord of me and t he God of me" cannot possibly be vocative.

[/LIST]

What is the vocative case?

the lord of me and the god of me cannot be vocative because there is no comma seperating it from the rest of the sentence. "the lord of me annd the God of me' is an incomplete sentence, no verb and no object. So all it can possibly be is the subject of a sentence where the verb and object are understood. or that it is a nominative of exclamation. (exclamations are incomplete sentences.)

Read more at What is the vocative case?

Irrelevant! This is English grammar. Give it up. You have been trying for three years but you will never prove your argument from any accredited scholarly source.

Greek did not have commas!

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

he-man said:
Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Irrelevant! Off Topic!

he-man · Sep 8, 2013

Der Alter said:
Irrelevant! Off Topic!
Originally Posted by Der Alter Koine Greek derived from classical Greek and is not exactly like classical.

So you deny that you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon?:o
Like I said,
Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

2ducklow · Sep 8, 2013

see thumbnail from page 769 in Robertsons book found
here.

.
CHAPTER I for A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research - Robertson (1914)

note that in the secondtumbnail robertson lists matthew 11.26 as an example of nom for voc. Well it's not.

it's a nomionative of exclamation. thus his argument is phoney..

(Rotherham) Matthew 11:26 Yea, O Father! (nominative of exclamation, not the phoney nom..for voc.) That, so, it hath become, a delight, before thee.

On the next one mark 9.25 Robertson totally filpped out by claiming that spirit is a nom for voc address when in fact the spirit is addressed as you (soi). Scholars get away with lieing like this all the time cause nobody calls um on it. fantasy world to the max.

Luke 8.54? another fabricated nom for voc. translation. luke 8.54 actually contains a nom of exclamation.

(Rotherham) Luke 8:54 But, he, grasping her hand, called aloud, saying--O girl! arise!

john 19.3? You guessed it, yet another nom. of exclamation falsly portrayed as nom. for voc.

Rotherham) John 19:3 and kept coming unto him, and saying--Joy to thee! O King of the Jews!--and were giving unto him smart blows.

Rotherham is probably the only bible trannslator that never buys into the phoney nom. for voc. rule because he never translates an articular nom. as a vocative. Pretty smart guy,, most go along with the crowd no matter how dumb the things the crowd is saying. So you see folks it's not just me saying this earth shattering stuff, Rotherham is saying it too, defacto.

Superfast · Sep 8, 2013

2ducklow said:
see thumbnail from page 769 in Robertsons book found
here.

.
CHAPTER I for A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research - Robertson (1914)

note that in the secondtumbnail robertson lists matthew 11.26 as an example of nom for voc. Well it's not.

it's a nomionative of exclamation. thus his argument is phoney..

(Rotherham) Matthew 11:26 Yea, O Father! (nominative of exclamation, not the phoney nom..for voc.) That, so, it hath become, a delight, before thee.

On the next one mark 9.25 Robertson totally filpped out by claiming that spirit is a nom for voc address when in fact the spirit is addressed as you (soi). Scholars get away with lieing like this all the time cause nobody calls um on it. fantasy world to the max.

Luke 8.54? another fabricated nom for voc. translation. luke 8.54 actually contains a nom of exclamation.

(Rotherham) Luke 8:54 But, he, grasping her hand, called aloud, saying--O girl! arise!

john 19.3? You guessed it, yet another nom. of exclamation falsly portrayed as nom. for voc.

Rotherham) John 19:3 and kept coming unto him, and saying--Joy to thee! O King of the Jews!--and were giving unto him smart blows.

Rotherham is probably the only bible trannslator that never buys into the phoney nom. for voc. rule because he never translates an articular nom. as a vocative. Pretty smart guy,, most go along with the crowd no matter how dumb the things the crowd is saying. So you see folks it's not just me saying this earth shattering stuff, Rotherham is saying it too, defacto.

wow that's mind blowing. all these facts should be presented in a court of law to stop people from perjuring themselves in public. That's the only reason they get away with it, cause there's no legal penalty for manufaturing false information as this guy Robertson did. well i better get ready for church, I hear my angel friends calling me to go. They always remind mewhen it's time to go, in case I might forget.

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

Superfast said:
wow that's mind blowing. all these facts should be presented in a court of law to stop people from perjuring themselves in public. That's the only reason they get away with it, cause there's no legal penalty for manufaturing false information as this guy Robertson did. well i better get ready for church, I hear my angel friends calling me to go. They always remind mewhen it's time to go, in case I might forget.

Yeah! We wouldn't want anyone perjuring themselves like this would we?

Superfast pretending not to know who 2ducklow is.

Superfast said:
wonder who that 2ducklow fella is? can't seem to recall anyone by that name, but then my memory isn't what it use to be.

And here is superfast giving kudos to 2 ducklow.

Superfast said:
They all are very deceptive as 2ducklow has pointed out repeatedly in this thread. Kudos 2ducklow.

And here is superfast admitting that he is 2ducklow.

Superfast said:
here ya go OzSpen, here is the thread I was talking about. 2ducklow use to be my SN but I changed it to Superfast.

More than a little dishonest. And in the post quoted here 2duck as superfast is patting himself on the back.

he-man · Sep 8, 2013

Der Alter said:
Yeah! We wouldn't want anyone perjuring themselves like this would we?

You mean like when you deny that you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon?:o
Like I said,
Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

Here is another deceptive practice of BAG:

ζιζάνιον, ον, τό (Aρoc. οf Mos. ch. 16 [CΤischendοrf, Apocalypses Aρocr. '66]; Geοροn.; Etym. Mag. ρ. 411, 47) prob. (Suidas: ζιζάνιον. η εν τω σιτω αίτω αiρ&#945

darnel, cheat a troublesome weed in the grainfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. (Geοροn. 10, 87, 1; 14, 1, 5) in Mt in the parable οf the `weeds (tares) among the wheat' Mt 13: 25ff, 29f, 36, 38, 40
(s. RLiechtenhan, Kirchenblatt 99, '43, 146-9; 167-9). The word is supposedly Semitic: ILow, Aramaische Pflanzennamen '81, 133; ΗLewy, D. semit. Fremdworter im Griech. '95, 52. On the subj. cf. LFοnck, Streifzuge durch die bibl. Flora '00, 129f; Sprenger, Pj 9, '13, 89ff; ΗGuthe, ΖDPV 41, '18, 164f; ILow, D. Flora d. Juden I '28, 723-9.* Page 340 BAG

It correctly states that the word ζιζάνιον is cheat a troublesome weed in the grαinfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. and then BAG inserts the word (tares). But BAG fails to say what the word cheat representated in the Semitics.

But what idiom is the word used for? ζιζάνιον cheat; weedy annual grass that often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous as an idiom of someone who leads you to believe something that is not true; (mistakenly) cockle, tares which are a (synonym) darnel, tare

Now you can understand why he said:
Mat 13:28 And he saith to them, A man, an enemy, did this; and the servants said to him, Wilt thou, then, having gone away we may gather them up?

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

2ducklow said:
see thumbnail from page 769 in Robertsons book found
here.

CHAPTER I for A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research - Robertson (1914)

note that in the secondtumbnail robertson lists matthew 11.26 as an example of nom for voc. Well it's not.

it's a nomionative of exclamation. thus his argument is phoney..

(Rotherham) Matthew 11:26 Yea, O Father! (nominative of exclamation, not the phoney nom..for voc.) That, so, it hath become, a delight, before thee.

You are joking, right? In the middle of a sentence Jesus supposedly pauses, utters an emotional exclamation, then continues.

"The nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence,...It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated." Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace, p. 58

[SIZE="+1"]ο πατηρ[/SIZE] is the subject of the sentence. Without "o pathr" the sentence does not make any sense. "Yea, ...That, so, it hath become, a delight, before thee." Note the verb, "become"!

On the next one mark 9.25 Robertson totally filpped out by claiming that spirit is a nom for voc address when in fact the spirit is addressed as you (soi). Scholars get away with lieing like this all the time cause nobody calls um on it. fantasy world to the max.

Mar 9:25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, [[SIZE="+1"]το πνευμα[/SIZE] N-NSN, noun, nominative, singular, neuter] I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Another magic trick. The nominative [SIZE="+1"]το πνευμα[/SIZE] again is the subject of the sentence. You want us to believe that Jesus was directly addressing the spirit, i.e. "saying unto him," He paused, uttered an excited exclamation, "thou deaf and dumb spirit," then continued the sentence. And you will note the verb, "come out" The Nominative of Exclamation has no connection with the rest of the sentence and no verb is stated.

Luke 8.54? another fabricated nom for voc. translation. luke 8.54 actually contains a nom of exclamation.

(Rotherham) Luke 8:54 But, he, grasping her hand, called aloud, saying--O girl! arise!

Jesus is directly addressing the girl. Girl has a connection with the rest of the sentence, and the verb is "arise."

john 19.3? You guessed it, yet another nom. of exclamation falsly portrayed as nom. for voc.

Rotherham) John 19:3 and kept coming unto him, and saying--Joy to thee! O King of the Jews!--and were giving unto him smart blows.

You guessed it another trick. "and kept coming to him" is not in the Greek. The Romans beating and humiliating Jesus said "Hail" supposedly paused and uttered an emotional exclamation "O King of the Jews," then kept beating him. Direct address to Jesus calling him "King of the Jews" connection with the sentence, and the verb is [SIZE="+1"]εδιδουν[/SIZE], strike, smite.

"The nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence,...It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated." Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace, p. 58

Rotherham is probably the only bible trannslator that never buys into the phoney nom. for voc. rule because he never translates an articular nom. as a vocative. Pretty smart guy,, most go along with the crowd no matter how dumb the things the crowd is saying. So you see folks it's not just me saying this earth shattering stuff, Rotherham is saying it too, defacto.

Cherry picking at its most blatant. Scramble around until you find something that seems to support your assumptions/presuppositions. They ignore the rule for Nominative of Exclamation.

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

he-man said:
So you deny that you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon?
Like I said,
Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Irrelevant! Off Topic!

C.O.Ioves · Sep 8, 2013

. . . . . .

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2013

he-man said:
You mean like when you deny that you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon?
Like I said,
Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον

The rendering "basilisk"so also Jerome and the Syriac Versionis correct

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Here is another deceptive practice of BAG:

ζιζάνιον, ον, τό (Aρoc. οf Mos. ch. 16 [CΤischendοrf, Apocalypses Aρocr. '66]; Geοροn.; Etym. Mag. ρ. 411, 47) prob. (Suidas: ζιζάνιον. η εν τω σιτω αίτω αiρ&#945 darnel, cheat a troublesome weed in the grainfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. (Geοροn. 10, 87, 1; 14, 1, 5) in Mt in the parable οf the `weeds (tares) among the wheat' Mt 13: 25ff, 29f, 36, 38, 40
(s. RLiechtenhan, Kirchenblatt 99, '43, 146-9; 167-9). The word is supposedly Semitic: ILow, Aramaische Pflanzennamen '81, 133; ΗLewy, D. semit. Fremdworter im Griech. '95, 52. On the subj. cf. LFοnck, Streifzuge durch die bibl. Flora '00, 129f; Sprenger, Pj 9, '13, 89ff; ΗGuthe, ΖDPV 41, '18, 164f; ILow, D. Flora d. Juden I '28, 723-9.* Page 340 BAG

It correctly states that the word ζιζάνιον is cheat a troublesome weed in the grαinfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. and then BAG inserts the word (tares). But BAG fails to say what the word cheat representated in the Semitics.

But what idiom is the word used for? ζιζάνιον cheat; weedy annual grass that often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous as an idiom of someone who leads you to believe something that is not true; (mistakenly) cockle, tares which are a (synonym) darnel, tare

Now you can understand why he said:
Mat 13:28 And he saith to them, A man, an enemy, did this; and the servants said to him, Wilt thou, then, having gone away we may gather them up?

Irrelevant! Off Topic!

nChrist · Sep 9, 2013

This is a very simple and blunt portion of Scripture that doesn't require referral back to the Greek. I must also say that the Greek argument is beyond silly. Just use your Jehovah's Witness bible and be happy, or write your own bible to say what you want it to say. Just know that the Greek argument is not scholarly, rather an attempt to twist Scripture into a mess that doesn't make any sense at all. Jesus Christ is God, one with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. You should avoid Greek if you can't use it without making a mess. Going shopping for scholars that agree with you has even backfired. In short, you have lost your argument.

he-man · Sep 9, 2013

Der Alter said:
Irrelevant! Off Topic! You guessed it another trick. "and kept coming to him" is not in the Greek.
Originally Posted by he-man So you deny that you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon? Like I said, Strange, since you quoted Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon in reply to
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice." The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον The rendering "basilisk"—so also Jerome and the Syriac Version—is correct
JewishEncyclopedia.com
Irrelevant! Off Topic!

Rotherham Jn 19:3 and kept coming unto him, and saying Joy to thee ! O King of the Jews! and were giving unto him smart blows.
Joh 19:3 and came to him [of continued action or condition, “ἦρχον] and said, "Long live the King of the Jews!" And they went up and slapped him.
και ηρχοντο προς αυτον και ελεγον χαιρε βαϲιλευ τω ϊουδαιων και εδι δοσαν αυτω ρπϛθσματα Codex Sinaiticus

Everything you do not believe has only one aspect and you ignore the Biblical grammars, lexicons, and Jewish and Church history by saying Irrelevant! Off Topic!
You even ignore BAG when it does not agree with your own deceit and disregard deceiver WordNet 2.0 by again not addressing what was said and by constantly avoiding it by saying Irrelevant! Off Topic! You call that exegesis?

You are as far off on the word hell as you are on the word BASILISK which The Septuagint uses as the word βασιλίσκον and then you even ignore The rendering "basilisk"—so also Jerome and the Syriac Version—is correct
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4437-cockatrice

ζιζάνιον, ον, τό (Aρoc. οf Mos. ch. 16 [CΤischendοrf, Apocalypses Aρocr. '66]; Geοροn.; Etym. Mag. ρ. 411, 47) prob. (Suidas: ζιζάνιον. η εν τω σιτω αίτω αiρ&#945

darnel, cheat a troublesome weed in the grainfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. (Geοροn. 10, 87, 1; 14, 1, 5) in Mt in the parable οf the `weeds (tares) among the wheat' Mt 13: 25ff, 29f, 36, 38, 40
(s. RLiechtenhan, Kirchenblatt 99, '43, 146-9; 167-9). The word is supposedly Semitic: ILow, Aramaische Pflanzennamen '81, 133; ΗLewy, D. semit. Fremdworter im Griech. '95, 52. On the subj. cf. LFοnck, Streifzuge durch die bibl. Flora '00, 129f; Sprenger, Pj 9, '13, 89ff; ΗGuthe, ΖDPV 41, '18, 164f; ILow, D. Flora d. Juden I '28, 723-9.* Page 340 BAG

It correctly states that the word ζιζάνιον is cheat a troublesome weed in the grαinfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. and then BAG inserts the word (tares). But BAG fails to say what the word cheat representated in the Semitics.

But what idiom is the word used for as ζιζάνιον cheat; weedy annual grass that often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous as an idiom of someone who leads you to believe something that is not true; (mistakenly) cockle, tares which are a [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](synonym) darnel, tare [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](derivation) deceiver WordNet 2.0[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]Compare Mat 13:28 And he saith to them, A man, an enemy, did this; and the servants said to him, Wilt thou, then, having gone away we may gather them up? [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]Blows the hell out of your hellfire, devil theory doesn't it?[/FONT][/FONT]

2ducklow · Sep 9, 2013

ah, it can be so frustrating talking to people who ignore 99 percent of what you say, but hey that's just normal standard operating prcedure in CF. It ainta gonna change. that's peoples personal defense against the truth, well that and poisoning the well which some are particularly adept at.. If they didn't have these defenses against the truth, they would be persuaded. and they don't want that. Ohh guess im sounding cynical. never mind. anyway look at this.

In the English language one does not employ the phrase "Thomas answered to him". One employs the phrase "Thomas answered him". The issue is the English rendering, not the Greek.

Now as to the phrase "My Lord" and "My God" being an exclamation of surprise rather than an instance of direct address, do keep in mind that neither Koine Greek nor Jewish custom of the first century utilized vocatives (the case used in John 20:28) for oaths. Simply put, the phrase "O my Lord! O my God!" wasn't an expression of surprise or derogation in those cultures. But then again, the phrase is being addressed to Jesus himself, as our text clearly notes: "Thomas answered him" (i.e., Jesus). Our rendering doesn't say "Thomas answered", which would have been one way to express surprise: i.e., "Thomas answered 'O my Lord! O my God!" -- That's how you make the Greek phrase into an exclamation of surprise. Which, by the way, is not what the Greek is saying.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us Note: the last statement in red is totally false. the way you say in greek O my lord and o my God IS what the greek is saying. the way you say "o MY LORD AND O MY GOD" is o kurios mou kai o theos mou".. Which is exactly the wording of john 20.28. this guy is flat out wrong. doesnt he know that the nominative of exclamation is excluded as a possiblity by other scholars only on the basis of "thomas answered him". ? Everybody else does. the things scholars get away with. in a court of law they'd all be guilty of perjury.
seems almost no one, includingthe author above can acknowledgethat thomas said literally "the Lord of me and the God of me" because to translate john 20.28 correctly destroys the argument that thomas addressed jesus. note too how the author above changes what the text says "thomas answered him" to "thomas addressed him". does anyone know that answereing someone doesn't mean addressing someone, it's amazing how highly intelligent beings can state such illogical lame nonsense. good news though i met 2 new angel friends in church, Jennifer and Allyson. they kissed me lots with kisses of God's love (agape). I think they are gonna help me through the day to continually walk right.

Der Alte · Sep 9, 2013

2ducklow said:
ah, it can be so frustrating talking to people who ignore 99 percent of what you say, but hey that's just normal standard operating prcedure in CF. It ainta gonna change. that's peoples personal defense against the truth, well that and poisoning the well which some are particularly adept at.. If they didn't have these defenses against the truth, they would be persuaded. and they don't want that. Ohh guess im sounding cynical. never mind. anyway look at this.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Note: the last statement in red is totally false. the way you say in greek O my lord and o my God IS what the greek is saying. the way you say "o MY LORD AND O MY GOD" is o kurios mou kai o theos mou".. Which is exactly the wording of john 20.28. this guy is flat out wrong. doesnt he know that the nominative of exclamation is excluded as a possiblity by other scholars only on the basis of "thomas answered him". ? Everybody else does. the things scholars get away with. in a court of law they'd all be guilty of perjury.
seems almost no one, includingthe author above can acknowledgethat thomas said literally "the Lord of me and the God of me" because to translate john 20.28 correctly destroys the argument that thomas addressed jesus. note too how the author above changes what the text says "thomas answered him" to "thomas addressed him". does anyone know that answereing someone doesn't mean addressing someone, it's amazing how highly intelligent beings can state such illogical lame nonsense.

The correct way to write O my God and O my Lord in Greek is not [SIZE="+1"]ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου[/SIZE]. [SIZE="+1"]ο[/SIZE] is the definite article.

Edited to add: Here is how the exclamation "O" is written in Greek, [SIZE="+1"]ω ανθρωπε[/SIZE]/O man, Rom 2:1. Omega "[SIZE="+1"]ω[/SIZE]" not omicron "[SIZE="+1"]ο[/SIZE]"
.
To address someone a : to communicate directly <addresses his thanks to his host> b : to speak or write directly to; especially : to deliver a formal speech to. Thomas answered Jesus that is addressing or speaking directly to him.

he-man · Sep 9, 2013

Der Alter said:
The correct way to write O my God and O my Lord in Greek is not [SIZE=+1]ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου[/SIZE]. [SIZE=+1]ο[/SIZE] is the definite article. To address someone a : to communicate directly <addresses his thanks to

Irrelevant! Off Topic!
Greek Word: ηρχοντο ἔρχομαι
Root: middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] Part of Speech: v Come, Came, Advent, Second, came, Coming of Christ Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
John 19:3 (Darby) and came to him and said, Hail, king of the Jews! and gave him blows on the face. came up[ESV]came unto[ASV]kept coming [BBE]

Rotherham Jn 19:3 and kept coming unto him, and saying Joy to thee ! O King of the Jews! and were giving unto him smart blows.
Joh 19:3 and came to him [of continued action or condition, “ἦρχον] and said, "Long live the King of the Jews!" And they went up and slapped him.
και ηρχοντο προς αυτον και ελεγον χαιρε βαϲιλευ τω ϊουδαιων και εδι δοσαν αυτω ρπϛθσματα Codex Sinaiticus

ηρχοντο verb: 3rd person imperfect middle indicative plural
see also Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
Mark 1:45, Acts 19:18

Everything you do not believe has only one aspect and you ignore the Biblical grammars, lexicons, and Jewish and Church history by saying Irrelevant! Off Topic!
You even ignore BAG when it does not agree with your own deceit and disregard deceiver WordNet 2.0 by again not addressing what was said and by constantly avoiding it by saying Irrelevant! Off Topic! You call that exegesis?

You are as far off on the word ηρχοντο as you are on the word BASILISK which The Septuagint uses as the word βασιλίσκον and then you even ignore The rendering "basilisk"—so also Jerome and the Syriac Version—is correct
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4437-cockatrice

ζιζάνιον, ον, τό (Aρoc. οf Mos. ch. 16 [CΤischendοrf, Apocalypses Aρocr. '66]; Geοροn.; Etym. Mag. ρ. 411, 47) prob. (Suidas: ζιζάνιον. η εν τω σιτω αίτω αiρ&#945

darnel, cheat a troublesome weed in the grainfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. (Geοροn. 10, 87, 1; 14, 1, 5) in Mt in the parable οf the `weeds (tares) among the wheat' Mt 13: 25ff, 29f, 36, 38, 40
(s. RLiechtenhan, Kirchenblatt 99, '43, 146-9; 167-9). The word is supposedly Semitic: ILow, Aramaische Pflanzennamen '81, 133; ΗLewy, D. semit. Fremdworter im Griech. '95, 52. On the subj. cf. LFοnck, Streifzuge durch die bibl. Flora '00, 129f; Sprenger, Pj 9, '13, 89ff; ΗGuthe, ΖDPV 41, '18, 164f; ILow, D. Flora d. Juden I '28, 723-9.* Page 340 BAG

It correctly states that the word ζιζάνιον is cheat a troublesome weed in the grαinfields, resembling wheat, in our lit. only ρl. and then BAG inserts the word (tares). But BAG fails to say what the word cheat representated in the Semitics.

But what idiom is the word used for as ζιζάνιον cheat; weedy annual grass that often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous as an idiom of someone who leads you to believe something that is not true; (mistakenly) cockle, tares which are a [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](synonym) darnel, tare [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](derivation) deceiver WordNet 2.0[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]Compare Mat 13:28 And he saith to them, A man, an enemy, did this; and the servants said to him, Wilt thou, then, having gone away we may gather them up? [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]Blows the hell out of your hellfire, devil theory doesn't it?[/FONT][/FONT]

2ducklow · Sep 10, 2013

NKJV) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Rotherham) John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God!

GodsWord) John 20:28 "Thomas responded to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

(NASB) John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"[

Wey NT) John 20:28 "My Lord and my God!" replied Thomas.

(LITV (Green)) John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

French LS) John 20:28 Thomas lui répondit: Mon Seigneur et mon Dieu!

](German Luther 1912) John 20:28 Thomas antwortete und sprach zu ihm: Mein HERR und mein Gott!

note the red !, it means all these translations translate "my Lord and my God" as an exclamation. They are just afraid to translate it correctly all the way and translate the def. article o as o, thus O my lord and O my God." seems everyone on both sides of t he issue want the definite article to disappear. Man, sure looks conspiratorial.

john 20.28 nom for nom.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

angel duck

he-man

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

he-man

angel duck

Attachments

Superfast

Guest

This is me about 1 yr. old.

he-man

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

C.O.Ioves

Guest

This is me about 1 yr. old.

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith

he-man

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old.

he-man

angel duck

Similar threads