Originally posted by galveston75It really is the best way, not to mention,. It saves aeons of time remonstrating with
I completely understand. Just say your peice and move on is really the best with a few here who will not reason but only react.
people who only want to argue.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75The point I am making is that the translation must make sense and not depart from his intent. Paul goes on to explain by continuing the sentence with --
Get ready for his onslaught of repeating the same question over and over and over. Lol
for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
Now if all things were created in Him and through Him and unto Him, then obviously He can not be one of the things created and there is other scripture which states that nothing was made that He did not make.
Therefore, firstbegotten means just that. It does not mean first created or else Paul would have said so and not gone to the trouble of explaining who created everything that was created.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCould you win a contract to translate bible [or similar] texts from Greek and Urdu into English, and from English into Greek and Urdu?
I have not stated it was on the a same level, what i stated is that I know enough to
read and write and have a basic understanding, on the same basis that I can read and
write Urdu and English...
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIn every other reference to the first-born (some thirty times prior to 1 Colossians ), it is with reference to progeny, why does it suddenly change when it comes to Christ, your religious bias , that is why.
The point I am making is that the translation must make sense and not depart from his intent. Paul goes on to explain by continuing the sentence with --
[b]for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created thro ...[text shortened]... have said so and not gone to the trouble of explaining who created everything that was created.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt does not change with Christ. He is the firstborn or firstbegotten of God. He is not the first created as You and the Watchtower Society has changed it to mean to agree with the theology that Christ is Michael the archangel and a created being.
In every other reference to the first-born (some thirty times prior to 1 Collossians ), it is with reference to progeny, why does it suddenly change when it comes to Christ, your religious bias , that is why.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou claimed that you know Greek "on the same basis that [you] understand English and Urdu". I don't think it's true. You are refusing to answer questions about whether your language abilities in Greek and Urdu are "on the same basis" as your understanding of English. You are being evasive.
what is it about uninterested that you fail to understand, this is spirituality, either post
something with a spiritual content or take it to general? I repeat, I am uninterested in
anything that is not related to spirituality, your post has nothing of a spiritual content.
even RJHinds at least makes some attempt to reference some reasoning based on a religious text, your post is empty and devoid.
Once again: Could you win a contract to translate bible [or similar] texts from Greek and Urdu into English, and from English into Greek and Urdu?
Originally posted by FMFYou are right. He does not know Greek, at least not Koine Greek, very well.
You claimed that you know Greek "on the same basis that [you] understand English and Urdu". I don't think it's true. You are refusing to answer questions about whether your language abilities in Greek and Urdu are "on the same basis" as you understand English. You are being evasive.
Once again: Could you win a contract to translate bible [or similar] texts from Greek and Urdu into English, and from English into Greek and Urdu?
Originally posted by RJHindsWell he has made the claim that he does know Greek. He has also made the claim that he understands Urdu "on the same basis" as he understands English. I don't believe him but i am willing to change my mind if he explains his claims convincingly.
You are right. He does not know Greek, at least not Koine Greek, very well.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't care what you think or believe, your posts have no spiritual content and are
You claimed that you know Greek "on the same basis that [you] understand English and Urdu". I don't think it's true. You are refusing to answer questions about whether your language abilities in Greek and Urdu are "on the same basis" as your understanding of English. You are being evasive.
Once again: Could you win a contract to translate bible [or similar] texts from Greek and Urdu into English, and from English into Greek and Urdu?
frankly boring, sorry to be so blunt, I hope you wont be offended.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't care what you think or believe, your posts have no spiritual content and are frankly boring, sorry to be so blunt, I hope you wont be offended.
But robbie, when you were arguing a point of "spiritual content" you claimed to understand Urdu and Greek "on the same basis" as you understand English. Is this true?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyou have attempted to state that the same basis means the same level of understanding,
robbie, you claim to understand Urdu and Greek "on the same basis" as you understand English. Is this true?
your assumption, not mine, I have already stated that i have a basic understanding of Biblical
Greek that I can read and write it, what is it about that statement that you do not
understand?
Originally posted by FMFyawn, double yawn, no spiritual content.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]I don't care what you think or believe, your posts have no spiritual content and are frankly boring, sorry to be so blunt, I hope you wont be offended.
But robbie, when you were arguing a point of "spiritual content" you claimed to understand Urdu and Greek "on the same basis" as you understand English. Is this true?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen you were arguing a point of "spiritual content" you claimed to understand Urdu and Greek. Your evasions since making this claim cast doubt upon their truthfulness. Therefore, your point about "spiritual content", based as it was on your claim that your understanding of Urdu and Greek is "on the same basis as English", is questionable, to say the least.
yawn, double yawn, no spiritual content.