|
>> >>Tony-Reply: But of course, nobody would argue that he was >>continually eating in the past. Rather, how long into the >>past he was eating is simply undefined. He could have been >>eternally eating, but he could have been only eating for 5 >>minutes. The text does not say, so Osoclasi is using >>something ambiguous and trying to form an argument from it. > >Response: Let me rephrase the question had John wanted to >say that Christ was eternal yet with the Father at the >beginning, how else could he have said it? The imperfect >does justice to both, unless you got a better answer?
Tony-Reply2: He could have said The eternal word was in the beginning with God. The point is, what he said is ambiguous, and to argue from what is stated is entirely circular.
>> >> > >> >>Tony-Reply: Notice that it is only "especially used" in >>narratives. It is not always used in such, as Osoclasi >>later argues (as you will see below). By attempting to >>limit the inceptive imperfect to ONLY narratives, Osoclasi >>is trying to make it look as though it cannot be, because in >>such places it does introduce "a topic shift or new >>direction for the action." > >Response: the gosple of John is a narrative, so the >*especially used* part is important. So looking at John 1:1 >upon what basis do you see a change of action or a new >direction taking place?
Tony-Reply2: The action taking place is his entering the state of being. Obviously there cannot be a change, because it is the first line of a sentence, however, this does not rule out the use here. I don't believe Wallace took into consideration the use of such in the first verse, but there is no grammatical reason that it could not occur in such a place.
> >And secondly why would you change it to an inceptive if the >imperfect works fine?
Tony-Reply2: I'm not "changing" anything. And I'm not saying it is not imperfect, but an inceptive imperfect. And the reason, as I have highlighted, is two fold. 1) I believe John 1:4 is related to verse 1. 2) I believe HN in verse 10 is inceptive.
>>>Tony-Reply: Of course here Osoclasi completely fails to >>engage the argument that I had presented. The issue is the >>use of APO, which is translated from. HN certainly could be >>used inceptively here, stating "What has come to be from the >>beginning..", but that is not where the argument rests. >>What he does not note is that APO (from) often denotes a >>going out from ones origin or source. Temporally, if the >>ARCH (beginning) is when Jesus is from, which this verse >>indicates IMO, that would point to an inceptive use of HN. > >Response: Well BDAG gives other defintions for apo other >than from, for instance it says on page 105 "of time >from...(on) since, it gives the example of "from the days of >John, and since last year..." > >So if that is the case "what was since the beginning..." So >it does not have to denote source, but could be illustrating >time. Preceded by a normal imperfect, was existed since the >beginning.
Tony-Reply2: This is just it though. If you say something is "since the beginning" it is not considered to be before the beginning, but only from the time of the beginning. For example, if I say, "I've been eating since the game started", the obvious understanding of such an expression is that when the game started, I started eating and I've continued doing such up until that time.
>> >>Tony-Reply: Here was see Osoclasi misrepresent Wallace. >>Osoclasi says, "the must be a *change in narration*." Yet, >>we note that Wallace did not ever argue that the inceptive >>imperfect is ONLY used in narration, but that it is >>"especially used" there. > >Respnse: Well this is a narrative so the *especially used* >part is here, so let's see the change of direction.
Tony-Reply2: See prior comments.
>> >>Tony-Reply: Igoring the scholarly quotes and the early >>church fathers, if we don't place hO GEGONEN with verse 4, >>it completely destroyes the stair step parallelism that John >>used in these verses. In order to maintain that, it must go >>with 4. > >Response: You ignored Daniel Wallace subjective genitive >arguement so you would agree that one does not have to agree >with everything a scholor says. Secondly the stair step >parallesim must be dropped if the passage does not make >sense, and as far as the church fathers, there are wrong >verse divisoins in our current bibles, so I am positive >there were some even then.
Tony-Reply2: I never said someone must agree with every scholar. Scholars disagree with eachother, so that is impossible. I simply cannot find a good contextual reason to consider such an option. I see nothing more than theology trying to take away from the obvious, especially in light of the statistical evidence.
>> >>Tony-Reply: In order for Osoclasi to even begin to >>formulate an argument he must explain how Solomon would >>overcome the grammarical requirements of Hebrew for Wisdom >>to be a female and make it a male. I await such a >>demonstration. > >Respnse: Simple, he could have used hacam instead of >hacamah.
Tony-Reply2: "hacam" is not a noun, so that doesn't work.
>>>Tony-Reply: A person can identify themselves as something. >>I am a programmer. I was working with him as a programmer. >>See, I still use "as" but it is stating what I am.. that I >>am a programmer. > >Response: Where does wisdom say "I am a archetech?"
Tony-Reply2: That is pretty much exactly what Prov 8:30 says. "I was beside him, a craftsman". Remember, the Hebrew text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which would be translated "as a craftsman"
> > Osoclasi has actually misrepresented his >>"as" argument here, in that he was originally saying that >>Wisdom was being compared to a master worker. However, I >>pointed out that this is not stated with the Hebrew text at >>all, and I showed him what would have been stated. Thus, he >>dropped this argument. So the question remains, why does it >>say AMON and not AMONAH? > >Response: The original text would read " I was by his side, >archetech" We add an for clarification, since wisdom is not >called an architech wisdom must be compared to one.
Tony-Reply2: Wisdom seems to be saying what he is with God, that is, Wisdom is an archtect beside God.
>>Tony-Reply: As any Bible reader can tell, 1 Cor. 1:24 does >>not call Jesus "the Wisdom to salvation" he calls him "the >>Wisdom of God." Now how can "the Wisdom of God" be limited? >> I don't believe it can. > >Response: this is a non response you did not even engage >with my exegesis at all nor even attempt to. Paul is saying >that Christ became the wisdom from God that lead those who >were called to salvation, there is no link to Proverbs 8 >except the word wisdom, and that is like me saying to you >after not seeing you for awile "what's up n*gga" verses a >white man with a KKK hat saying the same thing. COntext >makes the difference.
Tony-Reply2: Well, either one might be a bit odd, since I am white. Having said that, I understand the contextual issues you are talking about, however, it does not negate my point. Wisdom is wisdom, and wisdom leads us down different paths, but Christ's being the wisdom of God is not in some limited sense, he is it in the fullest sense, because he has it in the fullest sense (Col 2:3). As such, he does lead us to salvation, but he is not limited to that. This is my point.
>>>Tony-Reply: Seems to me that Osoclasi is attempting to >>change the plain meaning of what Paul states. To Christians, >>who recognize Christ as who he is, he is the Wisdom of God. >>Recognizing him as such results in salvation, but he is not >>the Wisdom of God in some type of limited context. In him >>all the treasures of Wisdom dwell (Col 2:3), not simply the >>treasures of Wisdom to salvation. > >Response: Another non response, you again supply no >exegesis, no walking thru the passage, nothing, all you are >doing is playing connect the dots when they should not be >connected. First of all when Solomon used wisdom he did not >mean that wisdom was for those who were called to salvation, >by Christ through his death beign a stumbleing block of >gentiles. If he did you need to supply exegesis. NOt >simply put up random verses with wisdom in it.
Tony-Reply2: See what I just wrote..
>> >>> >>Tony-Reply: The context isn't changing anything. You are >>attempting to redefine terms. For example, instead of "the >>wisdom of God" are you redefining it to "the wisdom to >>salvation". > >Respnse: So in Proverbs 8 Solomon is talking about the >electoin of those who were called by God and by this making >the wise look foolish? >> >>Tony-Reply: Let us see if this olds true in scripture: >> >>Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength >>and the first of my children (ROUBHN PRWTOTOKOS MOU OU ISCUS >>KAI ARCH TEKNWN MOU), hard to be endured, hard and >>self-willed. >> >>Here Ruben is called the ARCH (beginning or first) of his >>children. This is partitive, for Ruben was the first one of >>his children. > >Response: Genitive of relatoinship not partitive.
Tony-Reply2: Better study up on a genitive of relationship again, because this is not it. If it said something like, Ruben, son of... That would be a genitive of relationship. This one is identifying him as the first one of his children. In fact, it is identical to the construction of Rev 3:14. The issue is specifically with ARCH TEKNWN.
>> >>Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the first-born of >>the hated one to give to him double of all things which >>shall be found by him, because he is the first of his >>children (OTI ESTIN ARCH TEKNWN AUTOU), and to him belongs >>the birthright. >> >>Same here... first of the children. . > >Respnse: Same. Genitive of relationhsip
Tony-Reply2: Not even close. ARCH TEKNWN is not a genitive of relationship at all. >> >>Jeremiah 2:3 in following the Holy One of Israel, saith the >>Lord, Israel was the holy people to the Lord, and the >>first-fruits of his increase (ARCH GENHMATWN): al that >>devoured him shall offend; evils shall come upon them, saith >>the Lord. > >Response: Possesive genititive, although it is close.
Tony-Reply2: AUTOU shows possession, but ARCH GENHMATWN is not possessive at all, it is partitive.
> >> >>Exodus 12:2 This month shall be to you the beginning of >>months (O MHN UMIN ARCH MHNWN): it is the first to you among >>the months of the year. >> >>Certainly here the "beginning of months" is a month, so it >>is part of the collective whole of "months." > >Response: No the beginning would have to be part of >something, not the months. A partitive would be month of >months or days of month. that i sa subjective gentive, the >month's start.
Tony-Reply2: Months is a plural, a singular month belongs to the group of the plural. If I say, "the red tree is the prettiest of the trees," that is partitive, with the prettiest one being part of the group of trees. The Hebrew does not agree with you either, for it uses rosh.
>> >>Psalm 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom >>(ARCH SOFIAS FOBOS KURIOU SUNESIS), and all that act >>accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures >>for ever and ever. > >Response: Again the beginniing would have to be part of >wisdom and it is not, genitive of origin, the source of >wisdom is the fear of the Lord.
Tony-Reply2: No, because without wisdom, you cannot fear the Lord. That is the point. By fearing him, you display the first parts of wisdom. The Hebrew uses Reshit, which I don't believe allows for your position either. >> >>Certainly fearing God is part of what wisdom is, but it is >>not all of it. >> >>Matthew 24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning >>of birth pangs (PANTA DE TOUTA ARCH WDINWN). >> >>Certainly these are birth pangs, but they are only part of >>the group of birth pangs. > >Response: subjective, when birth pains begin, can be known >when all the events happen.
Tony-Reply3: Your position doesn't make sense at all. The events that were just described were only the initial ones of the group of birth pangs.
>> >>I>Tony-Reply: As I demonstrated, there are plenty of examples >>of partitive genitives where ARCH is used. > >Response: I diagree.
Tony-Reply2: Theologically you have to, but your attemps to demonstrate such have completely failed.
>>> >>Tony-Reply: It made perfect sense, for the beginning of the >>gospel of Christ is what the prophets wrote, which is about >>John the Baptist! > >Response: The partitive idea would have to be found in the >genitive itself, not a verse later. The beginning it not >part the prophets. A partitive would be one from the >prophets.
Tony-Reply2: It is the same sentence! Remember, verses are imaginary.
>> >>>>>Tony-Reply: This does not deal with the arguments >>presented. There are other Bible translation teams that >>will not release their names either. As I pointed out, for >>many years this was true of the NASB. To this day, it >>remains true for The Christian Bible. There are others as >>well. > >Response: But the watchtower refuses to release their guys >names, for fear of lack of creditionals. The point is the >NASB guys are known so are the NIV's so any realible text, >the authors are known or can be found out, not so with the >watchtower who refuse to tell us, even when asked.
Tony-Reply2: Sorry for them respecting the wishes of dead people! Who translated it has nothing to do with the quality of the translation.
>> >>Tony-Reply: That would not make sense either, for you don't >>use a personal pronoun in the genitive with a proper name. >>In 1 sam 20:12 KURIOS has the semantic force of a proper >>name, because it is translated from YHWH. > >Response: But this is a crazy arguement because he would >have to be calling David *YHWH* for your arguement to work, >and he'd never call him that. If adoni were there you'd >have an arguement but it's not.
Tony-Reply2: Ahh, but that is just my point! See, if I wanted to argue that David was Jehovah, I'd go right here to do it. Doesn't mean he is. Same for your position on John 20:28. You assume Jesus is God, so you argue from John 20:28. If I assume David is Jehovah, I'd argue from 1 Sam 20:12. If I don't assume either, and take the verses for what is obviously transpiring, I don't come to either conclusion.
>> >>Tony-Reply: Still doesn't help him, because then he is >>still not the same being as God, but only one representing >>that being. Further though, a representation is produced, >>as BDAG highlights. > >Response: A creation cannot be the excate representation of >God. Sorry unless you believe in two gods, and non of those >other gods share this with god that you might try to >mention.
Tony-Reply2: You again limit God's ability.
>> >>Tony-Reply: And Osoclasi is forgetting that this continues >>to destroy his position. > > >Response: No because I am monotheistic, not henothiestic.
Tony-Reply2: I'm Biblical. And even if Christ was not a copy, he still represents God's BEING.. That means he is not that being, which flies in the face of Trinitarianims.
>>>Tony-Reply: Hopeless conjecture in an attempt to overcome >>what the verse simply says. > >Response: This is a non response, you have been doing that a >lot lately.
Tony-Reply2: When you supply a bunch of opinion without grammatical or scriptural basis, there is nothing to reply to.
>> >>Tony-Reply: While I will grant this as true, it does not >>overcome what Hebrews 1:3 says. > >Response: Another non response. >> >>>>Tony-Reply: This still places a contexual limitation on >>Isaiah, for then everything said there is only in the >>ultimate sense. God is only a God in the ultimate sense of >>being eternal and the source of everything. > >Response: That is correct, you are catching on > > Christ is still >>a copy of God's being according to Hebrews 1:3. No matter >>how Osoclasi tries to spin it, he is still placing a type of >>contextual limitation on Isaiah. > >Respnse: Another non response.
Tony-Reply2: Say something that is more than opinion and I'll respond.
> >>>Tony-Reply: You mentioned you were getting a lot of popups. >> I would suggest going to download.com and downloading ad >>aware. It is free and will take care of that stuff for you. > >Response: SUre but it is more than popups.
|