POST ONE OF TWO
Hi @Dogknox20
1) Regarding the Justification for Dogknox20 posting incorrect and inauthentic text of John 1:18 as though it was authentic scripture
Dogknox20 said : “I post scripture.. I have never claimed to be a scripture scholar; I rely on the experts!” (post #1495)
No, you are NOT posting “scripture”.
There is no Greek source text of the bible that says : 1 John 18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him." (Dogknox, in post #1407).
Of THOUSANDS of Greek papyri and codices, NOT ONE says this.
IF ANY READER ON THE FORUM CAN FIND A GREEK SOURCE TEXT THAT ACTUALLY READS ACCORDING TO DOGKNOX20s QUOTE, TELL US WHICH OF THE THOUSANDS OF CODICES READS THIS WAY - ANY SOURCE TEXT WILL DO.
You are posting a paraphrased commentary masquerading as scripture.
There are readers who notice this dishonest tactic.
Also, you are not "relying on experts" since there are expert translators who render this text correctly but you didn't use them.
You seem to be choosing between texts based on textual bias, not based on which translators are more “expert”.
The problem with your offering readers a false text is that This is much worse than you complain the Jehovahs Witnesses are doing.
1)You are offering readers scriptural commentary as though it was authentic scripture.
2)While you complain the grammatically correct rendering adds a single letter in the Jehovahs Witness translation, your paraphrase adds more than 50 letters that do not exist in the source text.
The questions you were asked still remain unanswered :
1) How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
2) How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
If you claim ignorance of scripture, then this disqualifies your judgment regarding what is and what is not authentic scripture
If you claim you are ignorant of what constitutes authentic scripture and what does not, then I will accept this. However, IF this is you are admitting that you cannot distinguish authentic from false scriptures in what YOU are offering readers, then you have no right to complain that the Jehovahs Witness translation of John 1:1c is incorrect.
2) Regarding who originally engaged in "finger pointing" and who is simply responding
Dogknox20 said : “You point fingers saying; look at the Catholics.. “ (post #1495)
My response was actually to YOUR inaccurate and misleading finger pointing at the Jehovahs Witnesses for a grammatically correct translation and your misrepresentation and mischaracterization of their practices of not receiving blood transfusions.
IF you are going to point fingers, then you need to make sure you are not guilty of far, far worse offenses than those you point fingers at.
For examples
1) You tried to point out an error in a grammatically correct translation by offering inauthentic and bogus text as scripture.
Your first finger pointing at the Jehovahs Witnesses was the silly and inaccurate assumption that they “added an ‘A’” to the source text when the Greek actually does have an “a” grammatically while at the same time YOU offered a much, much, much more inauthentic and inaccurate paraphrasing of John 1:18.
I simply wondered how you justified this by saying :
However, YOUR offering of John 1:18 is unauthentic and a false rendering of the source Greek.
Your offering doesn’t merely add an “a”, but it adds entire false phrases of multiple words to the Greek that are not there in the source Greek. This is much worse than your complaint against others.
How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
2) You tried to grossly exagerate the effect of refusing blood transfusions in Jehovahs Witness Children by mischaracterizing and lying about their journal articles regarding blood transfusions.
I simply asked how you justified this by asking :
Why is the murder of thousands of innocents who were simply guilty of not being catholic or unwilling to act in conflict with their own conscience before God, more justifiable than an incredibly small number of individuals who die because they did not receive a blood transfusion?
What is your answer?
Does your mind and heart work such that if you claim others offer a different but correct translation, that this justifies the Catholic organization murdering thousands of innocents?
How does this justification work in your mind?
The same question can be said of the Catholic doctrine in it’s policy of forcing thousands into slavery. How do you justify slavery?
The same question can be asked regarding the Catholic doctrine of the persecution of Jews.
How does one justify the taking of Children from their Jewish parents by force to force the children to be or at least act like they believe in Catholicism?
The same question can be asked of the Catholic doctrine of Thievery.
How does one justify taking the property of thousands of others in order to enrich their organization and themselves in the name of Jesus?
The question can be asked regarding your claim that all of these evils are and were committed by “The Church of Christ” (when, in fact, Jesus would have repudiated such acts)?
How does your mind and heart work that it thinks that all these historical horrors are morally superior to adding an “a” to a sentence in a grammatically correct form?
The deep irony of this situation stems (partly) from the hypocrisy and the complaint of inaccuracy of another, group, while you are guilty of much, much worse.
While you complain that you cannot find any of 60 (sixty) interpreters who added the “a”, NONE of the THOUSANDS of Greek source texts adds the 55 letters you offered readers.
While you complain you cannot find a single English version (from 60) that has the “a”, you also cannot find a single Greek source text (from thousands that exist) that grammatically, lacks the “a”.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Hi @Dogknox20
1) Regarding the Justification for Dogknox20 posting incorrect and inauthentic text of John 1:18 as though it was authentic scripture
Dogknox20 said : “I post scripture.. I have never claimed to be a scripture scholar; I rely on the experts!” (post #1495)
No, you are NOT posting “scripture”.
There is no Greek source text of the bible that says : 1 John 18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him." (Dogknox, in post #1407).
Of THOUSANDS of Greek papyri and codices, NOT ONE says this.
IF ANY READER ON THE FORUM CAN FIND A GREEK SOURCE TEXT THAT ACTUALLY READS ACCORDING TO DOGKNOX20s QUOTE, TELL US WHICH OF THE THOUSANDS OF CODICES READS THIS WAY - ANY SOURCE TEXT WILL DO.
You are posting a paraphrased commentary masquerading as scripture.
There are readers who notice this dishonest tactic.
Also, you are not "relying on experts" since there are expert translators who render this text correctly but you didn't use them.
You seem to be choosing between texts based on textual bias, not based on which translators are more “expert”.
The problem with your offering readers a false text is that This is much worse than you complain the Jehovahs Witnesses are doing.
1)You are offering readers scriptural commentary as though it was authentic scripture.
2)While you complain the grammatically correct rendering adds a single letter in the Jehovahs Witness translation, your paraphrase adds more than 50 letters that do not exist in the source text.
The questions you were asked still remain unanswered :
1) How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
2) How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
If you claim ignorance of scripture, then this disqualifies your judgment regarding what is and what is not authentic scripture
If you claim you are ignorant of what constitutes authentic scripture and what does not, then I will accept this. However, IF this is you are admitting that you cannot distinguish authentic from false scriptures in what YOU are offering readers, then you have no right to complain that the Jehovahs Witness translation of John 1:1c is incorrect.
2) Regarding who originally engaged in "finger pointing" and who is simply responding
Dogknox20 said : “You point fingers saying; look at the Catholics.. “ (post #1495)
My response was actually to YOUR inaccurate and misleading finger pointing at the Jehovahs Witnesses for a grammatically correct translation and your misrepresentation and mischaracterization of their practices of not receiving blood transfusions.
IF you are going to point fingers, then you need to make sure you are not guilty of far, far worse offenses than those you point fingers at.
For examples
1) You tried to point out an error in a grammatically correct translation by offering inauthentic and bogus text as scripture.
Your first finger pointing at the Jehovahs Witnesses was the silly and inaccurate assumption that they “added an ‘A’” to the source text when the Greek actually does have an “a” grammatically while at the same time YOU offered a much, much, much more inauthentic and inaccurate paraphrasing of John 1:18.
I simply wondered how you justified this by saying :
However, YOUR offering of John 1:18 is unauthentic and a false rendering of the source Greek.
Your offering doesn’t merely add an “a”, but it adds entire false phrases of multiple words to the Greek that are not there in the source Greek. This is much worse than your complaint against others.
How do you justify offering readers a falsely rendered, inauthentic commentary as scripture while complaining that the Jehovahs Witnesses offer a perfectly correct rendering of John 1:1c?
How does the fact that you are offering fake biblical text prove a grammatically correct sentence incorrect?
2) You tried to grossly exagerate the effect of refusing blood transfusions in Jehovahs Witness Children by mischaracterizing and lying about their journal articles regarding blood transfusions.
I simply asked how you justified this by asking :
Why is the murder of thousands of innocents who were simply guilty of not being catholic or unwilling to act in conflict with their own conscience before God, more justifiable than an incredibly small number of individuals who die because they did not receive a blood transfusion?
What is your answer?
Does your mind and heart work such that if you claim others offer a different but correct translation, that this justifies the Catholic organization murdering thousands of innocents?
How does this justification work in your mind?
The same question can be said of the Catholic doctrine in it’s policy of forcing thousands into slavery. How do you justify slavery?
The same question can be asked regarding the Catholic doctrine of the persecution of Jews.
How does one justify the taking of Children from their Jewish parents by force to force the children to be or at least act like they believe in Catholicism?
The same question can be asked of the Catholic doctrine of Thievery.
How does one justify taking the property of thousands of others in order to enrich their organization and themselves in the name of Jesus?
The question can be asked regarding your claim that all of these evils are and were committed by “The Church of Christ” (when, in fact, Jesus would have repudiated such acts)?
How does your mind and heart work that it thinks that all these historical horrors are morally superior to adding an “a” to a sentence in a grammatically correct form?
The deep irony of this situation stems (partly) from the hypocrisy and the complaint of inaccuracy of another, group, while you are guilty of much, much worse.
While you complain that you cannot find any of 60 (sixty) interpreters who added the “a”, NONE of the THOUSANDS of Greek source texts adds the 55 letters you offered readers.
While you complain you cannot find a single English version (from 60) that has the “a”, you also cannot find a single Greek source text (from thousands that exist) that grammatically, lacks the “a”.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
