>>Tony-Reply4- Micah 5:2 talks about his "origin" and says
>>Olam, which is used of people.
>
>Response: Huh? You said "Could have said, "The word that is
>from eternity." You said from eternalty, that is his
>origin. That is what you asked for and it was given to you,
>there is nothing left for you to argue.

Tony-Reply5: Actually no, a double use of Olam denotes absolute eternity, ala Psa 104:5. Micah 5:4 does not use that, but is comparable to Gen 6:4, where it speaks of "the men of old".

>
>>Tony-Reply4: Satan will be no more... So not eternal.
>
>Response: Satan?? I said angels, like micheal, etc. The
>heavenly angels. They were created and are eternal.

Tony-Reply5: Satan was an angel. Eternal means unable to day. Scripture never says they are such.

>
>>Tony-Reply4: No you're being funny, as if Wallace delt with
>>every possible use. Wallace obviously wasn't considering
>>the use in the beginning of a book. Please give me a
>>grammatical reason why an inceptive imperfect could not be
>>used initially.
>
>Response: Obviously you are making this up. Hey do you have
>any credible scholars who agree with you on this? I mean
>any grammitical text books (who are credible) who do this?
>I am curious, because normally you would have sources of
>some sort.

Tony-Reply5: I haven't looked frankly, but I have studied the language and I can find no grammatical reason why this would not be true. If you can supply one that is sound, I will accept it.. but I see nothing.

>
>Look to me this convo is over, unless you supply some sort
>of scholarly( credible) textbook or something that agrees
>with you, I am going to ignore you, and say that you are
>winging it.

Tony-Reply5: Why do I need to? There is no reason not too.. Or perhaps we should throw out Sharp's rule because he wasn't a scholar...


>
>And the reason why the inceptive can not be used initially,
>is because that is not what it is meant for, it is meant to
>indicate a topic shift or a change in narration. You are
>going outside of it's usage.( I showed you Wallace) I mean
>if you got an example from a Greek text book that disagrees
>with Wallace then I will consider it, but if ya don't, it's
>time to reconsider your position.

Tony-Reply5: You are incorrect in the matter. It introduces a topic shift when a topic exists. When a topic does not exists, it presents the topic. The use in such a case would be exactly as Wallace states: "The difference between the ingressive imperfect and the ingressive aorist is that the imperfect stresses beginning , but implies that the action continues , while the aorist stresses beginning , but does not imply that the action continues." This is why John would use HN instead of the aorist of GINOMAI.


>
>Lastly, I went to BDAG and look up hen in John 1:1 and it
>says "be,exist, be at hand." So even the dictionary notes
>the normal usage of the imperfect.

Tony-Reply5: When did I ever say HN means anything else? That is what I have maintained from the start! But taking it inceptively, he entered the state of being and then continued to do such.

>
>So Wallace, uses the normal usage of the imperfect, he tells
>us how the inceptive is used, the lexicon uses the normal
>use of the imperfect.
>
>So, between grammer and the lexical data, and you not giving
>a single reason why the inceptive is better than the normal
>usage, I don't think you have a case pal.

Tony-Reply5: I have given you verse 10, which continue to ignore..

>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Not if the aorist did not provide the COMPLETE
>>meaning of what John wanted to demonstrate, which has BEEN
>>MY ARGUMENT FROM THE BEGINNING. But you never enage this
>>point.
>
>Response: He could have used the imperfect form of ginomai
>then. That would have done it.

Tony-Reply5: Nope, because, again, as Wallace states: "The difference between the ingressive imperfect and the ingressive aorist is that the imperfect stresses beginning , but implies that the action continues , while the aorist stresses beginning , but does not imply that the action continues ." This is why he'd use the imperfect.

>
>>Tony-Reply4: Obviously you don't know what stair step
>>parallelism is. It is not verse jumping at all.
>
>Response: Look the bottom line is grammer is against you,
>usage is against you, the lexicons are against you. What
>else do I need?

Tony-Reply5: No, the grammar is not. I'm simply presenting another use of this, and I've demonstrated it. Beyond simply demonstrating it, I've shown translations that use it in John 1:10! You aren't engaging my point, providing a reason WHY it isn't so, you are simply claiming it isn't.

>
>
>>
>>Tony-Reply4: What is the logos was only 5 minutes before
>>the beginning?
>
>Response: Can't happen because the beginning would denote
>creation. If it were the beginning of time, the logos was
>there, if it were the beginning of any creation whatsoever,
>the Logos was there.

Tony-Reply5: Not if the beginning was simply the physical universe ala Gen 1:1, where the angels were already in existence (Job 3 ).

>
>>Tony-Reply4: Not really, because Christ never entered the
>>world then, he was just suddenly there. The question is not
>>which one WORKS, the question is which one is better. I
>>never said a normal imperfect wouldn't work, I just said I
>>think inceptive is better.
>
>Response: Again, there is no change in topic, or narration.
> Sorry Tony. The inceptive just is not kind to you.

Tony-Reply5: Where is this stated as a manditory? When a topic exists, yes, but when a topic doesn't exists, it can be used to initate a topic, stressing the beginning and that it continues, which the aorist does not do. Wallace does not rule this out, he simply does not cover it.

>
>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Not at all... Just no evidence for such in
>>this context. It is not disproven.
>
>Response: Lexical data is against you , Wallace is against
>you, usage is against, you, I am against you. ( just had to
>throw that last part in

Tony-Reply5: No, actually its not. Wallace does not rule it out, BDAG does not rule it out. I've provided contextual and grammatical reasons for such, but you won't touch them. I wonder why.

>
>>Tony-Reply4: Reminds me of Revelation 3:12- I will make him
>>a pillar in the temple of my God.
>
>Response; That's one, ya need six more. Ya also need some
>maidens as well.
>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Go read Gill, he deals with all this stuff.
>
>Response: What an answer!! I never saw it coming, what
>intellect, how did you ever think of such a great answer????
>
>gasp! how can I ever bounce back from such ingenious?? I
>will never be able to rebuttal this statement.
>
>Ok Tony, your done, I am going to drop this one, you have no
>answer.

Tony-Reply5: No, I'm hardly done. I simply don't see the need for me to pull up and quote him when you can simply go read it yourself. Gill is online and he addresses the points you are presenting. It was funny, when I said to go read BDAG on DIA, you went and did it and conceeded the point.. Now I do the same thing, and you're just like, "you're done." What changed.. why the desperation now. Probably because you've lost several points on this discussion already related to grammar.

>>
>>>Tony-Reply4: Gill delt with this stuff many, many years
>>ago. Long addressed points.
>
>Response: No answer, just as I thought.

Tony-Reply5: Gill is my answer. I'm simply not going to copy and paste all his stuff on every verse you present. You are capable of reading it yourself.

>
>>
>>Tony-Reply4: I have explained the passage for you. Just
>>don't seem to want to engage what I said.
>
>Response: I don't want to engage in what you said? LOL,
>Tony I gave you exegesis, and asked you to do the same, you
>have not given me anything but connect the dots. Get out of
>here, you have no answer. again you are done.

Tony-Reply5: The problem is, your exegesis doesn't deal with the specific points I'm making.

>>Tony-Reply4: LOL. You've not SHOWN me anything. What a
>>crock! I've demonstrated the repeated use of the partitive
>>genitive, to which you've been unable to overcome. I've
>>shown you what BDAG states about the linguistics. You can't
>>overcome the evidence!
>
>Response: You showed my BDAG, but BDAG does not deal with
>genitive constructions, but Wallace does. Here is an
>example of a subjective genititive, so you cannot say I did
>not show nothing.

Tony-Reply5: BDAG deals with the linguistics, which relates back to the construction. I've demonstrated that the the semantic trigger of a 1st century reader would not be subjective, but partitive, because that was the normal use. You've attempted to reply, but you've slowly stopped trying on each verse because you've been unable to substantiate your claim.

>
>agapas tou Christou, " love of Christ" in a subjective would
>be Christ love for us.
>
>Jump to Mark 1:1 "arche to euaggeliou Yesou Christou"
>beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
>
>Becomes the gospel of Jesus Christ begins or starts, take
>the verbal noun and convert it. NOTICE I STAYED WITHIN THE
>GENITIVE PHRASE I DID NOT JUMP TO VERSE 2

Tony-Reply5: This does not work though, because verse 2 is the same sentence as verse 1, and this translation does not fit.

>
>Now Rev 3:14 "arche tes ktiseos tou theou"
>
>Beginning (or ruler) of the creation of God, convert the
>verbal noun.
>
>God's creation begins, but we are talking about a person, so
>God's creation beginner, or as the NIV has it God's creation
>ruler. And John 1:3 and Col are no problem because God
>could have empowered Christ to start the creation process,
>or Christ could have started speaking and God then empowerd
>him to do such, either way it is consistant.

Tony-Reply5: If God empowered Christ, then God began it by the act of impowering! The thought that would be triggered by a 1st century reader is clearly partitive, as seen throughout the NT and the LXX.

>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Demonstrate it, don't just claim it. Mark
>>didn't help you.
>
>Response: After you demonstrate that someone agrees with you
>about John 1:1, and I mean someone credible a known scholar.

Tony-Reply5: Why? What does that have to do with it. If it is true, it is true. I've demonstrated it with John 1:10 and demonstrated translations that render it as such. If 10 is it, there is no reason 1 wouldn't be either.. In fact, it is likely that 1 is as well because of that! You can't address the verse, so now you resort to this. Just what I suspected.

>>>Tony-Reply4: Nope, partitive. Because the ARCH is Israel.
>>Again, the Hebrew uses reshit.
>
>Resposne: First of all autou is a genitive as well.
>
>apche genematon autou = first of product of his and that
>equals his first product or his first fruit.
>
>In regards to Hebrew, I am not even sure if Hebrew has such
>thing as a partitive genitive, I am looking at Walke and he
>does not mention such. He gives other stuff but not this.

Tony-Reply5: I did not say it did, but the meaning of the Hebrew tells us the meaning and can help us understand the Greek. Yes, there are 2 genitives here.. The first has the ARCH as part of it.

>>>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Yes, the genitive is partitive, the ARCH is
>>the part.
>
>Response: nope sorry, pal. Remember the partitive idea is
>pretty rare. Usually it is something else.

Tony-Reply5: Not so rare obviously. That is why every LXX translation that I've seen renders it as such.

>>Tony-Reply4: The fear of Jehovah is the first part of
>>showing wisdom.
>
>Response: Nah I don't think wisdom can be divided into
>parts, those sound objective. Fear concearning Jehovah is
>the beginning towards wisdom.

Tony-Reply5: Again, the LXX and Hebrew text disagress with you. Clearly partitive.


>
>>>Tony-Reply4: But the problem is, that is not what this
>>verse is SAYING. It is indentifying what the first pains
>>are. That is what it says.
>
>Response: Or apposition.

Tony-Reply5: Again, the LXX translations out there render it partitively. It is not apposition at all.

>
>>>Tony-Reply4: No. The quality of the NWT speaks for itself.
>> Read Beduhn's Truth in Translation.
>
>Response: Sure I'll read it. THen again I might have read
>it before.
>
>>>Tony-Reply4: Nope, because you limit the meaning of the
>>word exclaimation. I am not speaking of saying, "Oh my God"
>> but exclaiming one's belief, which is what Jesus told him
>>to do in verse 27.. start believing.
>
>Respponse: " Oh my God" is swearing, he would not do that in
>front of his rabbi.


Tony-Reply5: I didn't say he said "Oh my God". You better study up on the uses of such a nominative. It is entirely allowable here.

>
>>>Tony-Reply4: The bible clearly calls othes gods. You can
>>deny this to your hearts content, but my position is 100%
>>biblical.
>
>Response: They don't have the same nature, so can I tell my
>friends?
>>
>>Tony-Reply4: ROTFL. The CARAKTHR and the original Being.
>>That = 2 beings. No way around it.
>
>Response: Two persons, one being

Tony-reply5: Two beings.. two hUPSTASISes.. not two PROSWPONs.

>>
>>Tony-Reply4: Never said he did. What does that have to do
>>with the point? Jesus and God are never said to share a
>>single essence either.
>
>Response: Qualtitative use of Theos illustrates that one.

Tony-Reply5: Not at all, just as DIABOLOS does not make the disciple the same nature as Satan.

>>>
>>Tony-Reply4: They are spirits, God is a spirit.
>
>Response: These things are not omnipresent nor omniscent.

Tony-Reply5: Never said they were.. but still spirit, as God is.

-Tony