• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

john 20.28 nom for nom.

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by 2ducklow, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    AW shucks man, sometimes it amazes me how accurate the Catholic bible is at times. like this one. Hey don't get a heart attack but the catholic bible is better than most bible translations, except of course, you guessed it < Rotherhams. actually in john 20.28 the catholic bible is better grammatically than Rotherhams on this verse. /although rotherhams is better theologically, he appeared confused ,, in my estimation, as to how to properly translate it. Too bad I wasn't around to help him out on this one.

    &#7936;&#960;&#949;&#954;&#961;&#943;&#952;&#951; &#920;&#969;&#956;&#8118;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#949;&#7990;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8183;: &#8001; &#954;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#972;&#962;( NOminative) &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#8001; &#952;&#949;&#972;&#962; (nominative) &#956;&#959;&#965;

    John 20.28 Thomas answered, Thou art my Lord (nomianative) and my God (nominative).

    NEW ADVENT BIBLE: John 20

    Of course the translation is incorrect theologically, but it is , unlike any other bible translation, accurate grammatically. The catholic bible rejects here outright the phoney nominative for vocative grammar rule invented solely to prove that Jesus is God, and correctly translates God and Lord in the nominative case. They assume Thomas uttered an incomplete sentence wherein Lord and God were the objects of that utterance. Scholars will sometimes admit to this possible grammatical translation, but usually don't because they put all their marbles in the phoney nominative for vocative rule. Hey if it was in ghe genetic case they would have come up with a genitive for vocative grammar rule. whatever it takes.

    the only other real option grammatically, which is the correct one theologically, is that Thomas said "o my Lord and O my God!" But no one wants to touch that nomitaive of exclamation grammar rule in john 20.28 with a 10 foot pole except of course for moi.

    So looks like the catholic church and I both know the nominative for vocative grammar rule is phoney as a 3 dollar bill. I think an avalanche is on it's way. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    I like super's 55, cool car but not near as cool as a 1950 bulletnose Studebaker. Undoubtedly the coolest car ever built.

    So the Catholic New Advent Bible steps up to the plate and correctly translates lord and god in the nominative case which case they are in koine greek in john 20.28. Kudos for the New Advent , the only bible that unequivocally translates the nominative as the nojminative.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  2. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Since you seem to be claiming to be the be all end all expert on Koine Greek, superior even to Rotherham and the translators of the Catholic Bible, can you please show us which Greek word is translated "art" in this verse?

    Joh 20:28 &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 [AND] &#945;&#960;&#949;&#954;&#961;&#953;&#952;&#951; 611#5662# &#959; 3588 [ANSWERED] &#952;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#962; 2381 [THOMAS] &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 [AND] &#949;&#953;&#960;&#949;&#957; 2036#5627) [SAID] &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; 846 &#959; 3588 [TO HIM,] &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; 2962 &#956;&#959;&#965; 3450 [MY LORD] &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 &#959; 3588 [AND] &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; 2316 &#956;&#959;&#965; 3450 [MY GOD.]​
     
  3. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    see the thing is Rotherham correctly translated My Lord and My God as an exclamation, but most people don't know that the eliminates it from being vocative. So I think he was afraid to correctly translate it as "O my Lord and O my God!" because he probably thought he might get lynched if he did. cause everyone would know that O my Lord and O my God! is not vocative in no way. So it was a way out for him and others who did the same thing.

    My Lord and my God is either an incomplete sentence where the subject or object was iunderstood, (an nothing in the context of the chapter indicates that) Or it is a nominative of exclamation such as it is everywhere else. like here.

    (Rotherham) Hebrews 1:8 but, as to the Son,--Thy throne, O God (ho theos, articular nominative), is unto times age-abiding, and--A sceptre of equity, is the sceptre of his kingdom,

    everyone translates o theos here as O god (I wonder why nobody wonders why god would exclaim O God to himself? cause they would have to then say that God wasn't addressing God as God, Yep. Nobody wants to go down that road, except of course, you guessed it, moi) but john 20;28 which likewise has ho theos, suddenly no body ever heard of nominative of exclamation. Guess I'm just largely blessed that I can see it when hardly anyone else can. oh well.

    p.s. the 1951 Studebaker had a bullet nose but it was smaller and didn't look as good as the 1950 model.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  4. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    My posts from 4 years ago sweeping up the floor with all your "john 20.28 nom for nom." arguments.

    Wallace Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics proving Nominative for Vocative. See many examples below.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7429504-20/#post55837674

    Quotes from ECF proving Nominative for Vocative.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7429504-2/#post53922588

    2 secular Greek grammars proving Nominative for Vocative.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7429504/#post53880724

    4 Koine Greek Grammars proving Nominative for Vocative.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7429504/#post53875852
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  5. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    wow I started this thread 4 years ago, and it's had over 15000 views. Just image how many people during that time have discouvered the truth about what john 20.28 really says as a result of reading this thread. I figure it's gotta be at least 10 or 15. Massive rewards for me in heaven.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
  6. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    &#964;&#959; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959; &#949;&#953;&#962; &#945;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#966;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#956;&#951; &#964;&#945; &#965;&#968;&#951;&#955;&#945; &#966;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#945;&#955;&#955;&#945; &#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#964;&#945;&#960;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#947;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#953; &#956;&#951; &#947;&#953;&#957;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#949; &#966;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#953;&#956;&#959;&#953; &#960;&#945;&#961; &#949;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962;

    &#949;&#953; &#948;&#949; &#964;&#953;&#962; &#948;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#953; &#949;&#953;&#948;&#949;&#957;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#953; &#959;&#965;&#948;&#949;&#960;&#969; &#959;&#965;&#948;&#949;&#957; &#949;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#954;&#949;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#952;&#969;&#962; &#948;&#949;&#953; &#947;&#957;&#969;&#957;&#945;&#953;

    &#954;&#945;&#953; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#947;&#949;&#955;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965;
     
  7. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.


    A. T. Robertson supposes that the nominative is used for the vocative. In other words, he made it up.
    He supposes, something other scholars do not suppose, that john 17.25 and mark 9.19 et.al. are cases of nominative for vocative based upon his assumption that their guttural and labial stems indicate that.. he gives as absolute proof math 9.22


    (Rotherham) Matthew 9:22 And, Jesus, turning and seeing her, said,--Take courage! daughter, Thy faith, hath made thee well. And the woman was made well, from that hour.
    See the greek word for daughter (thugatere) is feminine, it's vocative, it's singular, and it's guttural so he concludes hey any noun with a guttural ending is vocative. All assumption. the whole nominative for vocative false grammar is a baseless assumption. People gobble it up cause most everyone has no idea what is \being said up there (I had to look up the meaning of several of those words and carefully analyse what he was saying) and cause hey he's A. T. Robertson, no need to look any deeper just accept whatever he puyts out cause hey he's A. T. Robetson.


    Also he is being deceptive here with john 17.25 because john 17.25 has in greek pathr (nominative of father) pater (vocative of father) dikaie (vocative adjective meaning righteous). and he claims the vocative adjective modifies a nominative father, it doesn't. In Greek you have father(nominative) father(vocative) righteous (vocative). IN Greek when you have two nouns like Father father together in an address, you don't put them both in the vocative case you put the first one in the nominative case because it modifies the second vocative father, and the adjective in the vocative case because it modifies the vocative noun not the nominative noun as A. T., Robertson here falsely asserts. There are other deceptions in here as well but this is a biggie. THis isn't a case of nominative for vocative, it's a case of correctly using the nominative with a vocative when you have the same noun of address twice. Greeks would not say the vocative form twice here, that would be improper grammer, they wouldn't say pater pater dikaie, they would always say here and everywhere pathr pater dikaie.

    So I would ask why not suppose that the nominative case is being used by God as the nominative case so as not to confuse anyone, rather than Robertsons assuming that the nominative case is being used as the vocative case in order to confuse everyone?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  8. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    When you either become or get yourself a Greek scholar who knows what they are talking about then you might be qualified to question the writings of Robertson, who taught Graduate level Greek for 47 years. That means a ThD or PhD and several years researching, teaching and writing. Until such time anything you say about NT Greek is meaningless. All you are doing is presenting unsupported arguments trying to suipport your false assumptions/presuppositions. You couldn't even translate the 3 NT scripture I quoted in Greek above.
     
  9. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    Ok so, oxytone means acute accent on last sylable,
    Labial means lip articulation, like saying a p or a w.
    Guttural means harsh or throat like kh in English.

    Ok, now he is saying, albeit confusedly, that the guttural and labial stem nouns are vocative. Then he states that &#951; &#960;&#945;&#953;&#962; is nominative for vocative, because as he states further on, he assumes presumes it. It isn&#8217;t , it&#8217;s nominative of exclamation. There is no assumption presumtion with translating it as Rotherham does because nominative of exclamation isn&#8217;t an assumption it&#8217;s rock solid grammar.

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

    Another assumption, this time on the part of Winer-schnetzel. This time Winer is assuming singular something (probably nominative but that&#8217;s left out to confuse everyone) belongs to syntax. Whereas W. H. assumes something else which Winer finds false. These guys are all over the map cause they all dreamed up this nominative for vocative phoney grammar rule to try and squeeze Jesus is God out of john 20,28. Thus their phoney grammar \rule as metasesized into the rest of the bible so they gotta assume/presume all over the place and everybody has a different story to tell.

    Ok so now Hort assumes thugater (&#952;&#965;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; or girl in luke 8.54 ) is nominative for vocative because of another different assumption. He assumes that the long e was pronounced as a short e thus making it vocative.. Assumption after assumption after assumption all because the nominative for vocative grammar rule was made up and nobody can get their story straight.

    (Rotherham) Mark 5:34 And, he, said to her--Daughter! thy faith hath made thee well; withdraw into peace, and be whole from thy plague.

    Mark k5.34 thugater is nominative of exclamation. That&#8217;s how Rotherham translates it because he doesn&#8217;t assume to presume to make up false grammar rules like nominative for vocative. And any way how in the world is Hort going to know how anyone in Jesus day pronounced an e as long or short? He&#8217;s just assuming presuming.


    (Rotherham) Luke 8:48 And, he, said to her--Daughter! thy faith, hath saved thee: Go thy way into peace
    Daughter is nomoinative of exclamation not nominative for vocative.

    (Rotherham) John 12:15 Do not fear, O daughter of Zion! Lo! thy king, cometh, sitting upon the colt of an ass.
    Daughter is nominative of exclamation, not nominative for vocative. All Robertsons examples are examples of places that he assumes his phony assumed grammar rule applies.
    And so on and so on with the other 3 or 4 examples. All assumptions. Not facts.
    Now Robertson is saying no no Hort assumes wrong, the correct assumption (suppose) is that it&#8217;s caue they have labial and guttural stems.
    This is reading like a comic book when you carefully analyse it.
    I&#8217;ve already showed in the previous post how Robertson is being deceptive here..
    Wrong Robertson. John 17.25 says &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; (nom) &#960;&#945;&#964;e&#961; (voc) &#945;&#947;&#945;&#952;&#951; (voc). Robertson is going by the defunct TR, I quoted WH.
    Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A.T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D., 1919, George H. Doran Company.


    once again Robertson assumes that the invented phony grammar rule applies here.. It doesn&#8217;t. it&#8217;s nominative and should be translated correctly, as does Rotherham as nominative, in this case, nominative of exclamation.

    (Rotherham) Mark 9:19 But, he, answering, saith--O faithless generation! (nominative of exclamation)how long, shall I be with you? how long, shall I bear with you? Bring him unto me

    Or

    (Darby) Mark 9:19 But he answering them says, O unbelieving generation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him to me.

    Or

    (NASB) Mark 9:19 And He answered them and said, "O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him to Me!"

    All nominatives of exclamation, just like God intended them to be in Greek and English.



    Rotherham like me, believes God meant the nominative case when he used the nominative case. If God wanted to say something requiring the vocative case, he wouldn&#8217;t use the nominative or genetive, or accusative case. He would and did and does use the case he means not some case he doesn&#8217;t mean.
    But the bible is polluted with the effects of this grammar rule they invented in john 20.28 to get the word of God saying something in the vocative case when god said it in the nominative case all for the purpose of squeezing Jesus is God out of John 20.28.
    God says what he means ,not what he doesn&#8217;t mean.


    Hope this clears up any ambiguities, I&#8217;m certainly getting a clearer picture the more I dive into this Robertson fiasco. Hey, don&#8217;t get me wrong, Robertson was an A+ scholar, its just that he like all Christians, allow their false doctrines to override any clear thinking that they have. Hey I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume something just like the big boys < Robertson, Hort, Winer-Schnetzel etc., do with the phony nominative for vocative grammar rule. I assume that people who can't understand what Robertson is saying assume that I , 2ducklow , must not be able as well to understand what Robertson is saying. I think some people consider grammar to be like rocket science. well it isn't. its just a bunch of rules anyone can understand. But I will admit that Robertson's article here requires some carefull analysis to understand what he is saying, more carefull analysis than anyone is willing to invest in it except for you guessed it > 2ducklow. 3 cheers for duck. On the sadder side, I bet ole Robertson is up there in heaven now wishing a million times over that he hadn't been so dishonest and disceptive about the phony nominative for vocative grammar rule. Though while he was here on earth Im sure he had absolutely zero idea that he was being so dishonest and desceptive about the nom. for voc. rule. But now he knows why he was and how he could have avoided it. I know there's gonna be some stuff I'll be sorry about but exposing the phony nom. for voc. rule isn't going to be one of them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014
  10. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Duck does not have a clue what he is talking about. You can't even read the English translations you posted and understand the difference between a nominative of exclamation and an nominative for vocative.

    "Do not fear, O daughter of Zion! Lo! thy king, cometh, sitting upon the colt of an ass." There is no nominative of exclamation here. You say anyone can understand the Greek grammar rules. You don't even know the rule here. In this verse please tell me what makes it a nominative of exclamation. Don't just make up a bunch stuff, show me from grammars.
     
  11. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    so lets go to the next paragraph

    well yea of course he's talkin about nominative of exclamation, a real grammar rule. lets check out his examples. Thing I've noticed is everytime one of these scholars starts saying something confusing , it's cause he is hiding something he doesn't want us to know. I clearly demonstrated that in the first part of Robertson's explanation of the phony grammar rule nom. for voc. but in this part, he probably isn't since it's a valid rule.

    let's check out his first example romans 7.24 in which he claims it is a nom. of exclamation. Prob. no deception here, cause there's no need for it.

    (Rotherham) Romans 7:24 Wretched, man am, I! Who shall rescue me out of this body doomed to death?

    yep, Robertson doesn't do any supposing/presupposing/speculation or assuming/presuming here like he did with the phony grammar rule they made up. No need to. it's a fact.
    next example of his.

    (Rotherham) Romans 11:33 Oh! the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments! and untraceable his ways!

    yep no more assuming/presuming by Robertson here either, no need to cause he is using a valid grammar rule.

    no need to check out his other examples, he did a good job explaining nominative of exclamation, and of course without any assuming /presuming so characteristic of his deceitfiul first part.
    so lets get started on part 3 shall we?

    actually he isn't telling the whole story, he left out fem. nouns which are always the same in both cases. It's really simple, he just tried to make it confusing. the simple truth is that it is only singular masculine nouns that have a different ending in the vocative than they do in the it is nominative. It's not in a multitude of cases. it's in all nonmasculine singular nouns that the ending is the same, and only in masculine singular nouns that voc. and nom. have different endings.. the tactic is get um confused then set um up for a fall.

    Nope, he's appling his assumed phony grammar. john 17.21 is nominatives of exclamation, it isn't nominative for vocative.. Go to Rotherham who rejects the phony nominative for vocative grammar rule, amongst others.

    Note Robertsons deception here in john 17.21 where he claims &#963;&#965; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; is vocative. Wrong. john 17.21 is an example of literally "you father father." the first father is nominative the second is vocative. because the nom. and voc. spelling of the two words is different, a Greek would know instantly that what was being said was "You, who are the father (the nom. of father is the naming case thus you is identified in the nom case as being the father, then Father is put in the vocative case wherein the Father is addressed as the Father. Perfectly clear to the Greek, But Robertson fibbed and claimed the nom. of Father was vocative. How despicable. . Roberston very deceptfully left off the second father which is in the vocative form. here's what it really says in john 17.21. &#963;&#965; &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961; (nominative) &#960;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961; (vocative) This is not a case of nominative being used for the vocative. It's totally different than what these guys mean when they say the nominative is used as the vocative in john 20.28

    Robertson should have had his liscences revoked for this.. what gets me is nobody even ever calls him on these blatant deceptions.


    I don't know why people post these awful quotes from people like Robertson then say that nobody can understand it,, so nobody can comment on it. Not even the person who posted it. I mean do they really believe that? WEll if that's what they believe then they should can it and not post awful stuff by Robertson, since they believe nobody, including themselves can even understand it. I mean really everybody knows grammar is rocket science right? It must be cause they use grammatical words like oxytone, guttural, labial so it must be rocket science right? LOL.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  12. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    If you knew the first thing about the study of languages, none of this would be confusing to you. But you jump into 2d or 3d year Greek without any knowledge of the very basics, then complain because you don't have the basic knowledge to understand what is said. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. all start with the basics, then after 2-3 years more advanced studies. They don't jump into 2d-3d year studies and yell that their professors are all wrong. But now days everybody with a Strong's thinks they are Greek scholars.

    You have not shown that you understand what the Nominative of Exclamation [NomExc] is, yet you want to argue that certain verses are NomExc. On page 2 of this thread I quote from 6 Greek grammars, 2 classical Greek and 4 Kone Greek. The 2 classical Greek grammars document the occurrence of NomExc and Nominative for Vocative [NomVoc] in classical Greek hundreds of years before the NT was written. The ancient pre-Christian Greeks, did not have any Christian presuppostions to support. Thus all your arguments against NomExc and NomVoc are just so much blowing in the wind.
     
  13. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married

    http://books.google.com/books?id=YR...summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q="vocative&f=false


    Ok let's check out this guys false statements in support of the phony nominative for vocative grammar rule. These guys seem to have no shame about this.
    He says there are lots of examples of the nominative with the article used as vocative and lists 8 or the many he says exists. Well he picked 4 extremely ppor examples because they aren't examples at all of the phony nom. for voc. grammar rule.
    1. mark 9.25
    Rotherham) Mark 9:25 And Jesus, seeing that a multitude is running together, rebuked the impure spirit, saying unto it--Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I, give orders unto thee: Come forth out of him, and do not, any more, enter into him.

    wrong. deaf and dumb are nominative. thou is vocative. deaf and dumb, being nominative the naming case, are just naming who thou is. just like in the other phony example given by Robertson , you know the one that said "you father father" Ah people probably don't even remember it anymore. oh well.

    math 27.29
    (Rotherham) Matthew 27:29 and, plaiting a crown out of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand,--and, kneeling before him, began to mock him, saying--Joy to thee, King of the Jews!

    same thing as above, king of the jews is nominative because it names who thee is. that';s what nominative means, the naming case. How do these guys get away with such fabrications. I dunno.

    luke 8.54
    (Rotherham) Luke 8:54 But, he, grasping her hand, called aloud, saying--O girl! arise!

    different case here. in this case o girl is a nominative of exclamation, you know the one grammar rule that Robertson was able to get right.

    luke 18.11
    (Rotherham) Luke 18:11 The Pharisee, taking his stand, these things unto himself was praying: O God! I thank thee, that I am not like the rest of men,--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or, even as this tax-collector;

    another case of nominative of exclamation. Winer is wrong again, even with out that Schnetzel fella.

    luke 18.13


    (Rotherham) Luke 18:13 But, the tax-collector, afar off, standing,--would not so much as lift up, his eyes, unto heaven, but kept smiting his own breast saying--O God! be propitiated unto me, the sinner!

    ooops whadya know, another nominative of exclamation. no phony nominative of exclamation here, better luck on your next one Winer.

    john 12.13
    (Rotherham) John 12:13 took the branches of the palm trees, and went out to meet him, and began crying aloud--Hosanna! Blessed is he that is coming in the name of the Lord,--even the King of Israel!

    oh man that's pathetic Winer.

    king of Israel is nominative and names who the genitive Lord is. These guys get really desperate pulllin stuff like this out of the bag.
    rom 8.15

    (Rotherham) Romans 8:15 For ye have not received a spirit of servitude, leading back into fear, but ye have received a spirit of sonship, whereby we are exclaiming--Abba! Oh Father!

    Sorry Winer, you flunked again but hey on the bride side your scoring 100 percent failure.
    Oh father is nominative of exclamation not nominative for vocative.
    heb. 1.8
    oh man do we even have to look? OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk.
    (Rotherham) Hebrews 1:8 but, as to the Son,--Thy throne, O God, is unto times age-abiding, and--A sceptre of equity, is the sceptre of his kingdom,

    Yep you flunked again Winer, O god is a nominative of exclamation. (Actually winer flunked twice in one verse, he has God exclaiming "O God" which is ridiculous and, amongst other more convincing proofs, shows that the traditional translation of heb. 1.8 is false. it should read "thy throne is God". literally the Greek reads ' thy throne the God." so Winer's failure rate is now 110 percent. But Winer prob. just forgot to consider that just maybe something in the nominative case was suppose to have a nominative meaning. An easy mistake one could have when trying to make scripture say Jesus is God.

    hey maybe we could discuss that other phony grammar rule, the spencer tracy grammar rule. something like that, maybe it's called John Q spencer? can't seem to quite recall it. oh well.. you know the English fella that invented a grammar rule to get Jesus is god out of titus 2.12. Oh oh oh, it just came to me, it's the grannville sharps grammar rule. I think I was mixing the Spencer carbine with sharps rifle with grannville sharps in my mind. Funny how the human brain works that way. Course too, my brain isn't as sharps as it use to be when I was younger. LOL.. It works except that the grammar rule he invented makes john 20.28 say Jesus is not God , so they invented the phoney grammar rule nom. for vocative to get Jesus is God out of john 20.28. course nom for voc. won't work on titus 2.13. a different grammar rule for any scripture twisted to prove that Jesus is God.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  14. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Nothing you have posted has addressed anything in my last few posts. You just keep posting your spurious, specious arguments over and over and over. If you knew anything about Greek you would be able to address this post. But quite evidently you do not know and don't know how to find out.

     
  15. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married

    and finally we have Wallace listing the same examples of nominative of exclamation which he claims are nominatives disquising themselves as vocatives. same ole story.
     
  16. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,476
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Duck tooting his own horn claiming to know more than every Greek scholar who ever lived. You are muddying the waters with repetitive arguments about Nominative and Vocative, yet you cannot translate 3 NT vss. which I posted in Greek. You keep arguing that all the scholars are wrong about Nominative of Exclamation [NomExc] and Nominative for Vocative [NomVoc] but you can't even tell me what constitutes a NomExc. If you have all this knowledge you should be able to tell me how you identify NomExc.
     
  17. Radagast

    Radagast has left CF Supporter

    +7,280
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    The vocative case is, by definition, the usual case in which people are addressed, though for many words it is identical to the nominative. And the N.T. repeatedly refers to Jesus as Lord in the nominative and other cases.

    In John 20:28, Thomas is certainly explicitly calling Jesus God. He is not using the vocative &#954;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; as an address, but asserting that Jesus is his Lord and his God. The context establishes an implied "you are."
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  18. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    JOhn 20 17 Jesus saith unto her--Be not detaining me, for, not yet, have I ascended unto the Father; but be going unto my disciples, and say unto them--I am ascending unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. .28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God! 29 Jesus saith unto him--Because thou hast seen me, hast thou believed? Happy, they who have not seen, and yet have believed! 30 Many other signs, doubtless, did Jesus, in presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but, these, are written, that ye may believe that, Jesus, is, the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye may have life in his name.
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/Doctrines/granville_sharp.htm


    looks to me like the context is that Jesus is the son of God. I see nothing in the context of John 20 that in anyway indicates that Jesus is God.

    Even the Granville sharps rule that was invented to prove that Jesus is God proves that Jesus is not God in John 20.28. It's a TSKTS construction which indicates 2 individuals not one in John 20.28. Grannville sharps rule is only applied when it indicates that Jesus is God when it is applied and proves that Jesus is not God then it isn't applied. It's the same sort of thing with the nominative for vocative rule. the nominative for vocative rule is applied because it proves that Jesus is God, when the nominative of exclamation grammar rule is applied it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. That's why the nominative for vocative grammar rule is applied to John 20.28 and not the nominative of exclamation grammar rule, because it proves that Jesus is God. So the translation is doctrinally driven and not grammatically driven..

    So really what determines if a verse is translated to mean that Jesus is God is that . Does the translation prove that Jesus is God, then that's the reason behind whether one chooses the nominative for vocative grammar rule or the TSKTS grammar rule in translating john 20.28. it's doctrinally driven. TSKTS proves Jesus is not god, nominative for vocative proves Jesus is God. so they choose the nominative for vocative and reject the TSKTS grammar rule. all because of their doctrine. In otherwords they are reading their doctrine into the verse. If I read my doctrine into the verse , and I believe the TSKTS, and nominative for vocative grammar rules are valid (which I don't) then I would choose the TSKTS grammar rule because it proves Jesus is not God.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
  19. 2ducklow

    2ducklow angel duck

    +96
    Married
    Most people take john 20.28 as undeniable unequivocal proof that Jesus is God. But it isn't. The question arises, why would God choose to tell us that Jesus is God the way he did in john 20.28 when no grammar rule existed that supported that interpretation of john 20.28 UNTIL the late reformation period when they invented grammar rule to prove that Jesus is God such as TSKTS and nominative for vocative. why? why didn't just flat out say Jesus is God like he flat out says Jesus is the son of God. Why? Proving Jesus is God involves twists and turns in every dicrection. Proving that Jesus is the son of God only involves quoting scripture that directly says that.
    john 20.31 but, these, are written, that ye may believe that, Jesus, is, the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye may have life in his name

    Should we believe God reveals it because Joe Blow says God reveals that Jesus is God? that's the usual answer to my question. The bible teaches that Jesus is God, God reveals in his word that Jesus is God, not scripture says it, but that it is revealed, according to Joe Blow. So believe Joe Blow, and I'll believe the word of God and let God reveal to me the meaning, and not take Joe Blows word that God reveals it cause hey he says God revealed it to him so you should just accept that God reveals it. nobody would buy that on any other topic EXCEPT the Jesus is God topic, then everybody eats it up vigorously.

    Hey everybody the pope says the bible teaches that Jesus is God, so that's what the bible teaches cause the Pope says so. would you buy that? That's essentiallhy the trinity and Jesus is God foundation. Joe Blow says God reveals it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
  20. Superfast

    Superfast Guest

    +0
    Hey Man that is so heavy, far out! I can see man how angels were helping you with that TSKTS stuff. You really hit the nail on the head with that one. TSKTS proves Jesus is God in titus 2.13 but proves Jesus is not God in john 20.28. Far out!!!!!

    (KJV) Titus 2:13 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;(TSKTS grammar here proves Jesus is God)

    (KJV) John 20:28 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (TSKTS grammar here proves Jesus is not God)

    I can dig it man. Whaaaaaa hoooooo!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2014
Loading...