"Thou Sayest"

[seattlegal]

I'm thinking that each individual instance needs to be taken in context.

It has been mentioned that some of the religious authorities repeatedly tried to "catch Jesus in his words," or "entangle him in his talk." (See Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20, for a few examples.) Su lego used in this context can mean something like, "own your own words!" You might want to consider the following passage in this respect:

Matt 12:33 [Jesus said] “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

OK, so when did "thou sayest" somehow come to mean "Yes. It is as you say"? What if I think it means something more like "That's your way of putting it"?

Anyone got the horse's mouth Greek?

Yeah, I got the Strong's Concordance and the Interlinear Bible, what's it to you?

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Or will you remain silent on this one too?

Quite the attitude...what do you expect to gain with it?

How about doing your own homework, since there is so much attitude:

Bullinger: Figures of Speech Used in the Bible

Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org


Let's see if you're big enough to handle it on your own. I certainly have no reason to do your homework for you.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Bullinger: Figures of Speech Used in the Bible

"Thou sayest" could be used as a form of metastasis, perhaps?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

"Thou sayest" could be used as a form of metastasis, perhaps?

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

How about doing your own homework, since there is so much attitude:

I don't tell people they're going to hell so I don't exactly have any claims to back up. And while you did provide me with the horse's mouth Greek, in no way did you demonstrate why "su legeiv" came to mean "Yes. It is as you say" in the NIV.
King James' "thou sayest" I can understand. You see, there's no added commentary. That's called the horse's mouth.

[juantoo3]

in no way did you demonstrate why "su legeiv" came to mean "Yes. It is as you say" in the NIV.

I didn't tell you it meant anything anywhere. Thou sayest, not me. Not only do you need to do your own homework, you need to learn not to read into things and assume anything.

King James' "thou sayest" I can understand. You see, there's no added commentary. That's called the horse's mouth.

I see you ignored the figures of speech lesson. In depth lessons in linguistics too much to handle?

I don't tell people they're going to hell so I don't exactly have any claims to back up.

I haven't told anybody here they're going anywhere...but there's always a first time for telling someone *to* go somewhere, it's still early.

You are the one that came here with a chip on your shoulder looking for someone to knock it off. Don't act surprised if someone takes you up on your offer. Do unto others, and all that jazz. What you are seeing here is what I understand "turn the other cheek" to really mean. Christians are not doormats.

Care to start again, from the beginning? With just a bit of social decorum, tact and civility.

Or would you rather continue dancing toe to toe? 'Cause I ain't had a good intellectual wrastlin' match in a loooong time, and I've sparred with better than you right at this forum.

Either way is good with me.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Um, hello? There would be nothing to be offended about if a person knew this didn't apply to them.

"Thou sayest" is the only objective translation.

The following are interpretations:
"Yes. it is as you say." (NIV)
"Sure."
"That's your way of putting it."
"I am what I am."
"I am whatever you say I am."

The NIV is a piece of commentary fraudulently passed off as a translation.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Um, hello? There would be nothing to be offended about if a person knew this didn't apply to them.

"Thou sayest" is the only objective translation.

The following are interpretations:
"Yes. it is as you say." (NIV)
"Sure."
"That's your way of putting it."
"I am what I am."

I get your point. The next one seems to summarize quite nicely:

"I am whatever you say I am."

The antidote to which would be the Contemporary English Version:

"Those are your words!" Jesus answered.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

OK, so when did "thou sayest" somehow come to mean "Yes. It is as you say"? What if I think it means something more like "That's your way of putting it"?

Anyone got the horse's mouth Greek? Or will you remain silent on this one too?

It falls right along the lines of Christ telling us specifically that "As you believe, so it shall be".

[mee]

And just so you can put your thinking caps on

The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar.

Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject.

John 20:17 Rev. 3:2, 12; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

And just so you can put your thinking caps on

The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar.

Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject.

John 20:17 Rev. 3:2, 12; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28.

Your translation is in error. It is "the God", not "a god". Emphasis on big "G" not little "g", and "the", not "a"...

Enjoy your Greek pie...

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by mee

The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar.

Mee, which translation has John 1:1 as "a god"? All translations I know of say just "God". In Greek its "en arxh hn o logov kai o logov hn prov ton yeon kai yeov hn o logov"

John 1 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Mee, which translation has John 1:1 as "a god"? In KJV and NIV it says just "God". In Greek its "en arxh hn o logov kai o logov hn prov ton yeon kai yeov hn o logov"

John 1 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org

ECL, don't beat your head against the wall...it just isn't worth it.

[mee]

[quote=Eclectic Mystic;153873]Mee, which translation has John 1:1 as "a god"? All translations I know of say just "God".quote]




For a consideration of the rules of Greek grammar that apply to John 1:1, see pages 26-9 of the brochure Should You Believe in the Trinity? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Should You Believe in the Trinity?



At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: "The Word was a god." In many translations this expression simply reads: "The Word was God" and is used to support the Trinity doctrine.

Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation.

But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of "god" long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language.

Five German Bible translators likewise use the term "a god" in that verse.

At least 13 others have used expressions such as "of divine kind" or "godlike kind." These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17.



Jürgen Becker, Jeremias Felbinger, Oskar Holtzmann, Friedrich Rittelmeyer, and Siegfried Schulz. Emil Bock says, "a divine being."


See also the English translations Today’s English Version, The New English Bible, Moffatt, Goodspeed.

Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—"and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)"
Gr., καὶ θεὸςη̉̃νὁ λόγος (kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos)

[Eclectic Mystic]

I see what you're referring to:

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an").

You're using a secondary/tertiary source of citation. There is nothing unequivocal about theos meaning "a god" just because it could. We do know it was written by John... This goes to show that many of these so-called translations-- the New World, the NIV, Contemporary English Version-- are mere pieces of commentary.