What is Reddit's opinion of Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

For Greek:

I highly recommend Bill Mounce as a Biblical Language teacher. I used his books to help me get a grasp of the basics of Greek and they are hands down the most easily accessible.

• He has a Youtube Channel with free lessons in Koine Greek: LINK

• His book "Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar" is also very helpful and you can get a used copy for a reasonable price on Amazon: LINK

For Hebrew:

Unfortunately I don't know of many cheap Hebrew resources to recommend you. I learned the basics using "Biblical Hebrew Grammar" by Bailey and Strange but it seem as if this isn't in print anymore and the price for a copy has gone up significantly.

https://www.amazon.com/Basics-Biblical-Grammar-William-Mounce/dp/0310250870

Feel free to stop with part 1. I grow weary of your ignorance in the matter overall. You've made up your mind to stubbornly defend your position, without regard for the history of the development of doctrine or the text of scripture in its original languages, and willfully ignore the possibility that Universalists might have something intelligible to say.

I'm quite literally only recounting corroborated historical developments and reading the text of the Bible to you. This is all verifiable information. If you want more information, go look for it outside of reddit. Maybe read Origen? Pick up Mounce's introduction to Greek? Feel free to acquire a bit of historical background as well. I recommend Gonzalez' two books.

>> NWT translation of Jn 1:1 is a grammatically wrong translation.

> This you can not say.

> This has been debated for years.

I can say that, because its true. The existence of debate does not mean that the matter is clouded to the point where we cannot acknowledge the falsehood of certain translations.

---

> There are no "a" or "an" used in the Greek language. These are supplied by translators as they see fit.

Its more than whether the translator subjectively sees fit to add the indefinite article. There are grammatical rules to which translators must submit or else they twist the scriptures. I described this at length in my comment above

---

> At John 1:1, the 2 times "Word" occurs in the verse and the 1st "God" are preceded by the word "the" making them proper nouns and capitalized. The last "god" is not preceded by "the" leaving it descriptive and uncapitalized.

First, I'm not saying that θεὸς is not descriptive. I think it is descriptive, that's my very point. Second, you're missing a key piece of the puzzle here. You're forgetting word order. One of the most widely used introductory biblical greek text books says the following:

> In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: "What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of "God" (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

> καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς. - "and the Word was the God" (i.e. the Father; Sabellianism)

> καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. - "and the Word was a god" (Arianism)

> καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. - "and the Word was God" (Orthodoxy).

It is clear, then, that καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς would translate as the NWT translates John 1:1. But the text of John 1:1 actually says, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. So the NWT is undeniably wrong here.

---

> The 3rd century Sahidic Coptic Christians translation agrees with our translation. YES, I said 3rd century.

The best evidence regarding this coptic text does not support the JW position

---

> JWs do not deny the divinity of Christ.

That's an odd way to phrase it... So you're saying that Jesus is God? I was always under the impression that JWs taught that Jehovah is the only true God. So, is Jesus a false God?

> It is trinitarians who deny Jesus divinity comes from his Father Jehovah.

This shows that you don't really understand trinitarianism very well. Trinitarian doctrine teaches that the second person of the trinity is eternally begotten by the Father outside of time. Trinitarianism literally says that Jesus, the second person of the trinity, is fully God. It says that he is a Divine person. It says that he is consubstantial with the Father. It says the exact opposite of what you're claiming it says. So this is another false (and unsubstantiated) claim.