*reading the label

Cabernet Sauvignon, Okanagan Valley BC VQA 2008

Misson Hill

I got it from a customer I was setting up a multi line switch for.  It's good stuff...   I have two and a half year old twins (boy and girl) and a four year old.  You don't indulge in the spirits?  I drink rarely but enjoy a few glasses now and again.

I agree with you, but that hardly works unfortunately.  I like to throw seemingly simple questions at them... sometimes it gives pause.  

*listening to Led Zep's 'Since I've been loving you'

I can't drink anything other than wine (meaning alcoholic), well, I can but I don't enjoy it.  Tequila would actually make me feel worst than sitting through an orthodox sermon.  As for that last part, smoke'em if you got'em I say

What can I say?

Tequila makes me hard.

And my wife loves it.

It brings out the Devil in both of us...

I could not get into beer except as a soda replacement because 72 ounces of beer equal 6 oz of vodka. Efficiency of a buzz is important.  Same buzz less filling. Scotch and air for me.

 

 I have tasted many different alcohols, still love a cold beer on a warm summers night, wine with a good meal (and a argentinian BBQ requires wine because otherwise it's just plain wrong), and some strong spirits for a night of fun with friends (rum for mojitos in the summer, whiskey for fall/winter, tequila for any occassion, and vodka for spring/summer drinks)

First of all don't patronize me then call me a liar you ignorant boob. Secondly I studied and received my diploma from a Fundie college.  The Granville Rule was created by a 18th century Christian apologist who was intent on finding what he needed.The rule works with two verses, you need an article  two common nouns conjoined by kai so WTF with John 1:1. You are thinking about a tendency for subject /predicate placement whne an article does not modify a noun in a copulative situation.

 

Granville Sharp's Rule is a grammatical principle applied to the translation of New Testament Greek whereby the deity of Christ is explicitly affirmed. This is specifically associated with the translation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

Secondly I do not know where you would apply it to John 1:1. Secondy there is no I Thess. 1:12. As to Eph. 1:14 the pronoun is neuter in the earliest texts and becomes altered to a masculine in the 4th century texts to support your trinitarian heresy once it developed (responding to the neuter "pneuma in v. 13). 

The difference is arbitrary, where 'kuriou' (Lord) in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is taken to be a name rather than a common noun (which is a very subjective decision), thus disqualifying it as a 'valid' example of Sharp's 'rule'. This, of course, reveals how unfounded the rule actually is. Why should the use of one article for two common nouns DEMAND they both apply to only one referent, whereas if one or both of the nouns is a proper noun, the use of one article can now be applied to two referents?

The whole rule was made up based on a small number of samples from the New Testament only, for the express purpose of proving Jesus' divinity; that was Sharp's stated goal. It certainly doesn't apply to Greek literature outside of the NT.  Try some Greek Grammars from historians rather than Christian apologists.

As to assistance with Greek Grammar get professional help for yourself. I am too lazy to get my LXX out since the rest of your stuff is garbage.

Get lost. You call me a liar and you can go  and use your genitals as an enema for yourself.

 

 

Yes I read all of A.T. Robertson;s work and even wrote a paper about the effect of his belief systme on interpretation of certain pronouns and prepositions such as eis as "because of" instead of its universal meaning of "into" Same with Wallace. I would certainly use his books but I would not take everythin 100% beause of his Dallas background. AS to verses you twit I know that you condescending prick. What does not render in two verses  and WTF are you talking about. If Ephesisnas I simply used the verses as markers to find the discussed points. I know you meant 2Thess and so I addressed it.   The rule is that it connects two common nouns not proper and what have you.  And as you said there is not absoluteness in them.  I graduated summa cum laude you frickin' fool.

"Sharp’s Rule" does not survive close scrutiny.  The problem is not with Sharp’s honesty or his diligence, but with the premises by which he did his work. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. ... If we turn to the standard work of Greek grammar, that of Smyth, we find no "Sharp’s Rule." But we do find several "rules" that may explain the pattern Sharp thought he was seeing in the New Testament. Smyth, section 1143, says: "A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and produces the effect of a single notion." That sounds an awful lot like "Sharp’s Rule," doesn’t it? But what exactly is meant by "a single notion"? Smyth gives two examples: "the generals and captains (the commanding officers)"; "the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet)." You can see from these examples that the two nouns combined by "and" are not identical; the individual words do not represent the same thing. Instead, by being combined, they suggest a larger whole. The generals and the captains together make up the more general category of "commanding officers," just as the various sized ships together constitute the fleet as a whole. So the article-noun-"and"-noun construction does combine individual things into larger wholes, but it does not necessarily identify them as one and the same thing. This is further clarified by Smyth in section 1144: "A repeated article lays stress on each word." So when a writer wants to sharply distinguish two things, he or she will use the article with each noun; but when the two things in some way work together or belong to a broader unified whole, the article is left off of the second noun. Other "rules" established by examining the whole of Greek literature also can account for what we see in Titus and 2 Peter. The absence of the article before "Savior" could just as well be explained by section 1129 of Smyth’s grammar: "Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article." Smyth gives the examples "man," "soldier," and "god." "Savior" clearly fits this same description. Or one might consider section 1140: "Several appellatives, treated like proper names, may omit the article." Smyth here uses the example of "king"; the term "Savior" certainly would have the same level of definiteness for a Christian writer.

 

Daniel Wallace said concerning extracting the meaning from the Greek New Testament: "This is not a hard science." (GGBB p.9) It is not a hard science in that there are no "rules of grammar" or formulas that one can apply to the biblical texts that will extract the exact meaning. He continues on page 10:

 

"To REQUIRE that a particular morpho-syntactic construction always fit the straitjacket of a particular semantic force before any exegetical conclusions can be drawn is to treat the vagaries of human behavior as though they followed the laws of physics. That some have taken just such a tack in biblical and / or linguistic studies does not thereby validate the approach.

 

Conversely, it must be admitted that most heterodox (whether theological or exegetical) positions are built upon what is POSSIBLE; but whether they are probable is a different matter. Just because a view is POSSIBLE does not make it likely in a given context."

 

Earlier on page 8, he said:

 

"On an even larger scale misunderstanding [of language, in particular the Greek NT] takes place - once again, because language is by nature compressed, cryptic, and symbolic. Whole epistles are interpreted in widely divergent ways. In part, this is due to the distance between the original author-reader matrix and the modern interpreter. It is as if we were listening in on half of a phone conversation. Yet, even the original readers did not necessarily fully grasp an author's meaning (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 Peter 3:15-16). That is, not everything in language is fully explained."

 

Most critics of the NWT treat Greek grammar as if it's a straitjacket that can only be seen in one way. They will say that the NWT breaks "Colwell's rule" or the "Granville Sharp Rule," without mentioning the fact that those rules are either disputed, or not formal "rules," but general guidelines. Critics approach the NWT with their theological presuppositions. An understanding of Greek grammar is subjective, and one must of a necessity bring one's presuppositions to the table. If those underlying suppositions are incorrect - a faulty foundation - then any meaning extracted from the Greek NT is called into question.

 

Most biblical scholars rely too much on tradition. They don't view the Greek text as it is. They often focus on what later writers and commentators believed. JWs, on the other hand, stripped tradition of its authority. They try to extract the meaning of the Bible based on the Bible.

 

So no, I don't pay too much attention to most critics of the NWT. Besides, for any criticized verse of the NWT, there are other scholars who will agree with the NWT's rendering.

 

Source(s):

 

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace

 

According to Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, the Greek text of John 1:1 is, grammatically, not a difficult verse to translate. "It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p. 132) Dr. BeDuhn would render the Greek of John 1:1c literally as "and the Word was a god," or in "a slightly polished" variant carrying the same meaning, "and the Word was divine." According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

 

The same conclusion can be readily drawn about the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c. This is a fairly literal translation of the Greek, made in the 2nd or 3rd century of our Common Era, at a time and place where the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language and widely understood in Egypt.

 

In regular Coptic syntax, auw neunoute pe pSaje means, straightforwardly, "and the Word was a god." And just as the Greek sentence at John 1:1c may express a qualitative force, the Coptic syntactical unit which corresponds to that Greek sentence may express an adjectival force. In other words, both may also be rendered as "and the Word was divine." (Cf. Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2006/7, pp. 7, 34) But is this ambiguity? No, for as Dr. BeDuhn states, both translations carry "the same basic meaning."

 

Still, some scholars are not satisfied with even their preferred "qualitative" meaning for John 1:1c, unless they can define "qualitative" as synonymous with "definite." For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996, p. 269) prefers a qualitative rendering for John 1:1c, but then goes on to say that "and the Word was God" is the simplest, most straightforward translation. That is a non sequitur.

 

John 1:1c is not carrying on a Greek philosophical dissertation about "persons" or "essences." But it is making an important distinction between "God" (Greek, ho theos; Coptic, p.noute) and another entity whom John describes simply with the Greek word theos (Coptic, ou.noute). The noun theos in the Greek of John 1:1c is pre-verbal and anarthrous. The noun noute in the Coptic of John 1:1c is in a regular indefinite syntactical unit. The force in both cases is the same: the Word is being distinguished from God, not identified as being God.

 

Further, John 1:1b emphasizes that this Word is "with" (Greek) or "in the presence of" (Coptic) God.

 

If, as some Trinitarian scholars assert, the idea of a qualitative rendering highlights the "nature" or "characteristics" of the Word rather than his identity, but this Word shared all the attributes and qualities that God (= the Father) has, then logically, the Word would be the Father. Yet, mainstream Trinitarians deride that idea as Sabellianism or modalism, "heresies" condemned by the church.

 

Is Coptic John 1:1 ambiguous? Not at all. But to be sure, it is the Trinitarian scholars who are forcing John 1:1 to be "ambiguous," not the Greek nor the Coptic text. The Greek text is not definite ("the Word was God&quot and neither is the Coptic text. Both the Greek and the Coptic texts agree that "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," which mean essentially the same thing.

 

Repeating I do not know where you would apply it to John 1:1. Secondy there is no I Thess. 1:12. As to Eph. 1:14 the pronoun is neuter in the earliest texts and becomes altered to a masculine in the 4th century texts to support your trinitarian heresy once it developed (responding to the neuter "pneuma in v. 13). 

The difference is arbitrary, where 'kuriou' (Lord) in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is taken to be a name rather than a common noun (which is a very subjective decision), thus disqualifying it as a 'valid' example of Sharp's 'rule'. This, of course, reveals how unfounded the rule actually is. Why should the use of one article for two common nouns DEMAND they both apply to only one referent, whereas if one or both of the nouns is a proper noun, the use of one article can now be applied to two referents?

The whole rule was made up based on a small number of samples from the New Testament only, for the express purpose of proving Jesus' divinity; that was Sharp's stated goal. It certainly doesn't apply to Greek literature outside of the NT.  Try some Greek Grammars from historians rather than Christian apologists.

 

 

You mean Acts 2:38 by the way,  Granville I agree can be used but with exceptions. . . I have studied for 32 years off and on. As you saw with A.T. Robertson ( and I love his Word Pictures) ones theology can and will effect ones exegesis. It is not that it is an obsolete rule it is a rule created because one was looking for indications of synonymous meaning of common nouns that would justify the late trinitarian doctrine in an earlier text.  I chuncked out hard and steadfast rules regarding grammar that have theological intent behind them.  I'd advise you to do the same. You could have simply asked me my understanding of what verses you want to discuss rather than assuming my position determines my exegesis. 

 

 

Iwould say that dark matter has not been found to form atoms. Dark matter seems to be non atom making.  as I said above apart from baryon matter dark matter that consists of three quarks the majority of dark matter is non-baryon and may or may not consist of neutrinos, neutralinos and heaven knows,  They are not effective with electromagnetic fields. My best speculation is that they ( dark energy / matter) are constructs to maintain Einstein's theory of gravity and may simply be represented as neutrino anti neutrino pairs. No a mathematical trick to explain astronomical observations but to explain the conflict of Einstien's theory of gravity with QM.  The halo circles are baryon based dark matter which is a very small percentage of dark matter  (not according to me but those that are the experts in the field). Well actually the othe dimensions may be enfolded in the particles themselves or in quantum foam which is intterpested as dark energy (expansion) and dark matter (attraction).  The relativity theory is a big part of the theories. But I think that if you look at the percentages and the functions of the posited drak energy and matter you get into mathematical attempts to bring Einstein's constant into a QM framework since the math typically won't revert back from QM to relativity. I just go with the idea presently of a flat vacuum state in which virtual particles eventually tunnel through and become actual.  I think you see this with dark matter and dark energy too. I could be wrong.

 Let me quote wiki because I'm no heavy reader in the subject:

Cosmological constant

Main article: Cosmological constant For more details on this topic, see Equation of state (cosmology).

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc², Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. In fact, most theories of particle physics predict vacuum fluctuations that would give the vacuum this sort of energy. This is related to the Casimir Effect, in which there is a small suction into regions where virtual particles are geometrically inhibited from forming (e.g. between plates with tiny separation). The cosmological constant is estimated by cosmologists to be on the order of 10⁻²⁹g/cm³, or about 10⁻¹²⁰ in reduced Planck units. However, particle physics predicts a natural value of 1 in reduced Planck units, a large discrepancy which is still not explained.

The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −p dV, where p is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a box of vacuum energy actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, p is negative and, in fact, p = −ρ.

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large.^{[14][verification needed]} This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which does not help. The present scientific consensus amounts to extrapolating the empirical evidence where it is relevant to predictions, and fine-tuning theories until a more elegant solution is found. Technically, this amounts to checking theories against macroscopic observations. Unfortunately, as the known error-margin in the constant predicts the fate of the universe more than its present state, many such "deeper" questions remain unknown.

Another problem arises with inclusion of the cosmological constant in the standard model: i.e., the appearance of solutions with regions of discontinuities (see classification of discontinuities for three examples) at low matter density.^[15] Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure assigned to the cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to attractive, as one looks back towards the early Universe. A systematic, model-independent evaluation of the supernovae data supporting inclusion of the cosmological constant in the standard model indicates these data suffer systematic error. The supernovae data are not overwhelming evidence for an accelerating Universe expansion which may be simply gliding.^[16] A numerical evaluation of WMAP and supernovae data for evidence that our local group exists in a local void with poor matter density compared to other locations, uncovered possible conflict in the analysis used to support the cosmological constant.^[17] A recent theoretical investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation. This is a key component required for a complete interpretation of astronomical observations, particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy.^[18] The identification of dark energy as a cosmological constant does not appear to be consistent with the data. These findings should be considered shortcomings of the standard model, but only when a term for vacuum energy is included.

In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration. One number successfully explains a multitude of observations. Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.

[edit] Quintessence

Main article: Quintessence (physics)

In quintessence models of dark energy, the observed acceleration of the scale factor is caused by the potential energy of a dynamical field, referred to as quintessence field. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it not to clump and form structure like matter, the field must be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.

No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has not been ruled out either. It generally predicts a slightly slower acceleration of the expansion of the universe than the cosmological constant. Some scientists think that the best evidence for quintessence would come from violations of Einstein's equivalence principle and variation of the fundamental constants in space or time. Scalar fields are predicted by the standard model and string theory, but an analogous problem to the cosmological constant problem (or the problem of constructing models of cosmic inflation) occurs: renormalization theory predicts that scalar fields should acquire large masses.

The cosmic coincidence problem asks why the cosmic acceleration began when it did. If cosmic acceleration began earlier in the universe, structures such as galaxies would never have had time to form and life, at least as we know it, would never have had a chance to exist. Proponents of the anthropic principle view this as support for their arguments. However, many models of quintessence have a so-called tracker behavior, which solves this problem. In these models, the quintessence field has a density which closely tracks (but is less than) the radiation density until matter-radiation equality, which triggers quintessence to start behaving as dark energy, eventually dominating the universe. This naturally sets the low energy scale of the dark energy.

In 2004, when scientists fit the evolution of dark energy with the cosmological data, they found that the equation of state had possibly crossed the cosmological constant boundary (w=-1) from above to below. A No-Go theorem has been proved that to give this scenario at least two degrees of freedom are required for dark energy models. This scenario is so-called Quintom scenario.

 

I am in the hospital and can not seem to log on can anyone such as a moderator assist me. I am goig to be here for a while if not from now on. 

Thanks Bob. I can access my email but can't get RRS to let me change passage my password.