Shermana
Heretic
I will be more than happy to go over every one of those those Trinity Proof texts. But before I do, I wanna ask you something about Jesus. According to Christian theology, Jesus was morally perfect. Now my question is, was it possible for Jesus to sin, or was it impossible for Jesus to sin? Please answer this question.
It was indeed possible for him to sin.
Jesus isn't the one rendering it, it is the author of John that lets the readers know that the actions that are taking place in that context was a prophecy from Zechariah. Second, I find it hard to believe that whoever translated John wouldn't have quoted the Zechariah scripture the same way it was rendered in Zechariah 12:10.
No, AGAIN you misunderstand. Jesus quotes it, without changing it, he says "As the scripture says", he is not changing what it says when he says "The one". I don't find it hard to believe this, since translators make errors especially when doctrine is concerned. I know enough about Hebrew to tell you that Zechariah's "Me" is not a definite "Me", it is a pronoun indicator that can mean a variety of things. You are saying that Jesus wasn't reading the verse as it says when he specifially says that he's quoting it word for word. You are making Jesus out as if he's changing the text. And your interpretation wouldn't even make sense, since he would say "me" if he was indicating that it was him who it was talking about. Why would he even say "The one" or "him"? Notice that even the Greek translations when quoting that sometimes differ between "the one" and "him".
Jesus says "As the scripture will be fulfilled" right before this. Now notice that the translations below can't even decide on if it's "him" or "The one".
New International Version (©2011)
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
New Living Translation (©2007)
and "They will look on the one they pierced."
English Standard Version (©2001)
And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."
You ask me how I am able to discuss Greek grammar without being totally fluent in it. But you don't even know the reasons for the claims in question such as this. The point is that the word "Eth" is not "me", it's an "untransalatable" pronoun indicator. It's not always clear how it's used exactly, but Jesus, when quoted by John, makes it overwhelmingly, undeniably, without question or doubt, clear that it was not meant as "me", but as either "him" or "The one".
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/853.htm
Now please read the following link before even trying to dispute this.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/zechariah-12-10
First of all, let me say that whoever adds words to or omit words from the bible is WRONG. Flat out wrong. Second, besides the New World's Translation (the JW bible), I am not aware of any translation that renders those Trinity text scriptures the way that they do. And if there are some translations out there, they are few and far between. You can feel free to go on biblegateway.com and look up all the Trinity proof texts and see how many of those translations renders those verses the way that you do. Unless you are saying that every single one of those translations are “Pro-Trinity”, how are you so certain that your view is the correct view and theirs are not, unless you are proficient in the Ancient Greek language.
Because I have scholars who agree with me that I base my view on. It's not a matter of appeal to a numerical authority, it's about the fact that non-church-aligned scholars have disagreements with the way the Trinitarian church-aligned scholars translate the Greek. They basically call them out saying that they resort to distorting the Greek itself to promote their doctrine, because the Greek when correctly clearly goes against what they're saying.
I posted a link that shows many translations that render John 1:1 as such. I can understand why you're not familiar with many translations that render it similarly, since the grand majority of mainstream translations are church-aligned. The market for intellectually honest non-church-biased scholarly translations is pretty much a niche.
Once again I ask, have you studied the Ancient Greek language?
I don't have to be fluent to say the same things as those who have studied it say.
You are coming across as if you are a subject matter expert on the language as you keep talking about “grammar” issues.
I don't have to be an expert to say the same things that independent non-church aligned experts do.
What I am saying is, once again, of ALL the different translations that there are on biblegateway.com, none of them agree with you,
It may be a shock to you, but all the mainstream translations on Biblegateway are church-aligned translations and they probably wouldn't dare link to any of the independent scholarly non-church-aligned translations. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time you've heard that there are hundreds of translations written by independent Greek scholars that you probably have never heard of.
but they all agree with me.
Yes, again, the majority of mainstream translations, especially those listed on sites like that, are the Church-aligned ones written for mainstream use in churches.
So either you are in a dream state at which you are stuck in a world where no one really agrees with you, or you should let the bible speak for itself. Just...relax a bit lol.
What's clear as day is that you're in a fantasy land when you have no clue that there are such things as other Bible translations than the ones listed on Biblegateway.com.
I take it those “hardcore” Greek scholars are not 10+ bible translators that translate it much differently.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement, but there are hundreds, not just 10+ that translate various verses differently.
If you're referring to the selection of mainstream church-affiliated translations like the King James, NIV, RSV, Good News Bible, etc, no, they're not on those.
I'm even referring to Trinitarian scholars like Moffatt and Goodspeed and Wallace who you probably have not heard of before judging by your previous replies.
I hope you can learn to appreciate that there are other Bible versions than the mainstream ones listed on Biblegateway.com and that there is a whole world of Bible scholarship which is at odds with the Conservative view in how to read the Dead-language of Koine.
If you are not proficient in Greek how do you know whether grammar is being distorted?
Because you don't have to know fluent Greek to know basic grammar principles that the experts discuss. The grammar in Greek is not far removed from grammar in other languages. If you are not proficient in Greek how do you know that these independent non-church-aligned Scholars are wrong? What about Trinitarians themselves who argue against the grammar choices by other Trinitarians like Wallace?
I can't wait to get to the rest of the Trinity Proof texts.
I'll be here tomorrow, feel free.
Last edited: