|
>> >>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-Reply6: Actually, it though I corrected that, it is aiwn that is doubled in the LXX. The Hebrew says "olam va'ed" which denotes eternity. I like how you convienently failed to address Genesis. Your point is disproven there quite well. Further, God has no origin, Micah 5:2 says Jesus does.
> >>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-Reply6: Actually, that "because" does not belong in there. It is not in the Greek text. Them being unable to die is not "because they are equal with angels.." They are unable to die, equal with angels and son of God. I see this as three statements of what they are.
>> >>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-Reply6: LOL. Running away I see. Simply because i don't have a quote, you refuse to engage my points. Why does this not surprise me.
> >>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-Reply6: There are many scholars who dispute Sharp's rule too, are you aware of this?
> >>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.
Tony-Reply6: You make the mistake of taking the view that Wallace covers every single aspect of Greek grammar. Unfortunatly he does not. If you live by only what Wallace says, and if he doesn't comment on something, assume it untrue, you'll never understand a langauge. This is not making anything up, simply dealing with the facts, something you cannot seem to do.
> > 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-Reply6: I hope you realize you are arguing from silence. John used HN, in 10 I have argued and demonstrated in to be inceptive, though you have unsuccessfully dispute this (more just said its not true, thus only providing an opinion). If he used it in 10, there is no reason he would not have done the same in 1.
>> >>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-Reply6: The more you talk about it, the more I think you really don't understand the inceptive imperfect. BDAG does not actually disagree with the use of it inceptively.
>> >> >>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-Reply6: Verse 9 doesn't deal with it, because verse 9 does not have Christ in the world. Verse 10 says that he was in the world, hence that he came to be in the world. As of verse 9, Christ is not yet in the world.
> >>>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-Reply6: NOW you say that, yes.. but again, you are arguing from silence..
>>> >>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-Reply6: Wow. All this time and you STILL think I don't believe in Christ's deity? Sheesh. I guess you really don't pay attention at all. The inceptive does indeed demonstrate a topic shift. How does it do that? That is the question. It does so by presenting a shift in events, something new coming about. See, this is why it demonstrates a topic shift. However, if there is no topic present, it does not prohibit the use, demonstrating something new coming about, it simply does not change it from one place to a new one.
> >>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-Reply6: Well again, if it is a parallel to Gen 1:1 (which is what many scholars argue for), the angels were there.. So not an issue for me.
> >>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-Reply6: I've demonstrated my claim by explaining how the inceptive is used. You are making an argument from silence. Wallace never states that it cannot be used in the way I am arguing. You have not refuted what I have stated on the use of it, you are simply denying it. I'm not making up rules, I'm just reviewing the facts. Unless you can provide me a reason why HN cannot be inceptive, in light of john 1:10 I find that it is most probably inceptive.
>> >>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-Reply6: This is your way of trying to duck out of it. Actually, it is kinda funny.
>> >>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-Reply6: I never claimed his point was to drive us there, but it is a result. Plus the things Jesus said about himself being Wisdom.
> >>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-Reply6: Actually, you have. You started out replying on a bunch of the LXX verses I quoted, then you I replied and you stopped discussing a few, then you replied again and I replied again, and you stopped replying about a few more. It goes on and one.
Looking at Genesis 40:21, because actually it uses ARCIOINOCOON. Verse 13 uses ARCIOINOCIAN.
41:13 is not constructed anything close to Rev, so I don't see your point. Keep in mind I never claimed that ARCH can't mean such, but when used as at Rev 3:14, ARCWN is used ala Rev 1:5. I believe it is clear that a personal pronoun, though in a genitive, does not apply to this use.
Neither verse in 2 Maccabees compares either.
> >> >>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-Reply6: Ok, I will grant you that it does work, though that does not make it the correct use, for BDAG renders it as I do, which I believe is more accurate. Whatever the case, it does not help your point really, because the ARCH is neither the orginator, the source or the ruler of the gospel. It still means the start, as in the initial part or one, just as I would argue Jesus is the initial part of God's creation.
>> >>>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-Reply6: I can take part in building a house. Does that mean I began the building?! Hardly! God is the source of creation, the source is the one that begins everything.
>>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-Reply6: I'm just dealing with the grammar. This comes down to a point where somebody understands what they are reading, because they understand the language, or they simply read what the text book says and knows nothing beyond what is in black and white. Obviously you're still in the text book phase.
>>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-Reply6: The second genitive is not partitive, that doesn't deal with the first. Gotta deal with the facts.
>>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-Reply6: Funny that you've yet to prove that a single verse I'm used is not partitive, you've only claimed such. Beyond that, I've disproven you by the Hebrew on many that you've claimed.
>>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-Reply6: Funny, when I bring up the Hebrew, you stop replying, because the hebrew proves they are partitive.
>>>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-Reply6: And this is exactly what I said he didn't do.
>> >>Tony-reply5: Two beings.. two hUPSTASISes.. not two >>PROSWPONs. > >Response: It does not say two beings, otherwise we'd have to >almighty Gods.
Tony-Reply6: Funny you won't deal with my argument. You have a hUPOSTASIS (being). And you have the represention/reproduction/copy of that being. Thus, you have the 1st and the one that is the representation/reproduction/copy. That is 2. The original being and the CARAKTHR. 2 beings, not persons, that is a different word.
>>>Tony-Reply5: Not at all, just as DIABOLOS does not make the >>disciple the same nature as Satan. > >Response: Different context.
Tony-Reply6: Special pleading here folks. Same construction, PAPN. If one doesn't do it, to force another to do it entirely on assumption and to dismiss the other is simply special pleading.
-Tony
|