Antedating comments htm Free dating no pay
No Greek grammar or lexicon states it is permissible to translate a dative noun as an adverb. Be Duhn's statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Be Duhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely" from a grammatical standpoint. De Buhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict.
Also, the traditional rendering follows the Greek precisely. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [eivse,rcesqai eivj th.n evkklhsi,an], and they consider him qei/o,n tina) J (on the combination of ku,rioj and qeo,j s. This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation..
The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").
Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.
If you know of a prominent scholar that I've missed, please let me know so that I may include him/her in a future revision of this article. Odd, isn't it, that once the field of texts goes outside the Bible the author (s) feel no need to offer an explanation for the designation of Christ as QEOS?
23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.
What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.
It is an obvious example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. Be Duhn's Ph D from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages.
But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.