|
> >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".
Response: You are looking at the LXX, the Hebrew does not have a double olam.
Psa 104:5 "yasad eretz al m'conyaha bal remot olam va'ed"
So my point is valid.
>Tony-Reply5: Satan was an angel. Eternal means unable to >day. Scripture never says they are such.
Response: So you don't think Luke 20:36 implies that they are eternal??
"... for they cannot even die anymore, becaues they are like angels..." Seems to me that angles can't die, and neither do we. Unless you think they randomly disappear. > >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.
Response: You haven't looked?? (LOL,go figure) Ok, I thought so.
I don't need to discuss this any futher then. Thank you.
>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...
Response: Well I think you need to because we all need to be responsible in our approach to scripture. If you have an idea, then it needs to be double checked by someone who is qualified to do such. It being responsibe. Other wise you are making up your own rules, and I can't disuss theology with a person making up rules.
Well Grandville's rule has been double checked by credible people such as Wallace. So at least it holds merit.
>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.
Response: Where do you find this statement at? Are you making this up again?? Can I see a page number? If there is not one I really don't need to continue discussing this. and you are making up stuff again.
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.
Response: Then he could have used the *imperfect* of ginomai (inceptively), and that would have solved the problem. > >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.
Response: That is not how the BDAG is using John 1:1, it is using it as a normal imperfect, like everyone else. I am not saying that lexical data overcomes usage, but it is more evidence. > > >Tony-Reply5: I have given you verse 10, which continue to >ignore..
Response: I already answered that, because I said that since verse 9 is talking about Jesus as the one who is coming. And since there is no topic change, nor change in narration, the flow of thought continues as normal, therefore, the normal inceptive should be used.
>>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.
Response: I said the imperfect of ginomai not the aorist. >> >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.
Response: Another use that is only used to back up a theology against the Deity of Christ, that is all it is. The inceptive is used just like Wallace was illustrating, in order to demonstrate a topic change of somesort.
>Tony-Reply5: Not if the beginning was simply the physical >universe ala Gen 1:1, where the angels were already in >existence (Job 3 ).
Response: Or it could have been before angles were created, simple.
>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.
Response: Well it is up to find someone who agrees with you otherwise you are making up your own rules here. And I can't argue with a perosn making up there own rules, then there are no limits. > >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.
Response: It is hard to touch something made up. Wallace gives us what it is used for, BDAG tells us that they view JOhn 1:1 as a normal imperfect, so there is no reason including verse 10, to take it as a normal imperfect. > >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.
Response: No not really I just get the feeling that Gill is going to be way out there, and really don't feel like reading it. But I see ya got it in another thread so i'll read that, but I don't like people doing that with any passage in the OT. If it is good I'll keep discussing, if I think it has holes in it, I'll drop it. No need to stress my self out. >> >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.
Response: Sure, I'll read the post. >>Tony-Reply5: The problem is, your exegesis doesn't deal >with the specific points I'm making.
Response: If it was not Paul's point to drive his audience to Proverbs 8, then there is no reason for us to do so.
>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.
Response: No, I have not slowed down on each verse at all, I gave you answers for each, I don't have to keep giving you a different answer do I? by the way arche does mean ruler, in the LXX the femine use of the word is used to denote rule or authority. ( gen 40:13;21; 41:13) and 2 Macc 4:10,50) and the subjective genitive makes perfect sense.
> >Tony-Reply5: This does not work though, because verse 2 is >the same sentence as verse 1, and this translation does not >fit.
Response: Verse 2 is not part of the genitive. "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gospel begins as it was written..."
It makes perfect sense. > >>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.
Response: Really does not matter, since Jesus is partaking in the creation he gets credit for what he did, so he can be seen as the one who began the creation. >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.
Response: Because you are making up your own rules, just to fit your theology. Verse 10 is not you icing on the cake, just because *some* scholars translate it that way, there are some who do not, so you need support, otherwise you are making up stuff and this could lead anywhere. Hard to address made up arguements. >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.
Response: Then it is not partitive, at least by my reasoning. >Tony-Reply5: Not so rare obviously. That is why every LXX >translation that I've seen renders it as such.
Response: nah those were either objective, subjective, or attributive. >Tony-Reply5: Again, the LXX and Hebrew text disagress with >you. Clearly partitive.
Response: Nah, don't see it, but I think you want to see it. >>Tony-Reply5: Again, the LXX translations out there render >it partitively. It is not apposition at all.
Respsone: You were discussign matthew not LXX. > > >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.
Response: If he said "MY GOD !!!!" that would be swearing as well. > >Tony-reply5: Two beings.. two hUPSTASISes.. not two >PROSWPONs.
Response: It does not say two beings, otherwise we'd have to almighty Gods. >>Tony-Reply5: Not at all, just as DIABOLOS does not make the >disciple the same nature as Satan.
Response: Different context.
------------ En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos
|