|
> >>Tony-Reply7: Yes, I made a mistake in what I typed, but not >>in my point. I corrected myself. > >Response: Sure, that is fine. > >> >>Tony-Reply7: Yeah, I overlooked GAR there.. totally didn't >>even see it. Guess I read too quickly. It could be taken >>that way, or it might be taken in the sense that those still >>considered "angels" are without sin and thus won't die. > >Response: Where in the world are you getting the "those >still considered angels" part?? The text does not say that.
Reply: Well the Bible calls them demons and unclean spirits. Are they still considered angels? I don't know. That is what I'm saying.
> >>Tony-Reply7: Well, frankly, you are. You are attempting to >>dismiss my point rather than engage it now. > >Response: Tony, why would I engage in something, that you >did not take the time to even look up? That is an >automatice sign that the only reason you even thinking this >is because of your dedication to your theology. I'd be >debating in vein, if I did.
Reply: How did the writer of the 1st grammar look stuff up? Might have been a little difficult I imagine, because he had nothing to look stuff up in. This is not about theology, but it is about supplying a reason that HN could not or should not be used inceptively. You have not supplied a valid one thus far.
>> >>Tony-Reply7: You've mentioned Wallace MANY times in our >>conversation. > >Response: And I said if you got any other sources, then show >me. But you did not even bother to look it up.
Reply: Unfortunately, most grammars deal very little with the inceptive. I was looking at it a bit last night. I believe it was Symth's, for example, spoke of the inceptive being very common in the NT though.
> >>Tony-Reply7: Yes, you have been. I've shot down every >>objection you've presented, to simply dismissing it by >>opinion, to verse 9 when considering Hebrews 10, to the >>point of whether the aorist or the imperfect should be used, >>and also why he would have used HN instead of GINOMAI. > >Response: Tony, you only say things like the above in order >to upset me, so that I will continue to debate you. Your >just venting now. It's simple, you give an arguement, I >give a rebuttal, then you say that either I am argueing from >silence, or that it is an opinion. Then you want to say >that by calling it an opinion or argueing from silence, that >you have shot down my arguements. Well, if it makes sense >to you.
Reply: I am not trying to upset you at all. I'm simply trying to give a summary of the events. If I was trying to upset you, you'd know it. But I don't do that. Your rebuttals have been exactly what I claim them to be. I can't help that.. they are simply what you have supplied.
> >> >>Tony-Reply7: No, actually it doesn't. See, you forget that >>"was" in english can be considered inceptive too. BDAG, for >>example, provides "be" as a rendering, as well as "exist". >>Does that mean that he was existing prior to the ARCH? No. >>If it is inceptive, then it means at the ARCH and onward he >>was being or existing. At the moment of it, he was be-ing. > > >Response: No, because the context of John 1:1 denies the >inceptive. Because all things that exist came through >Christ, if Christ himself *began* then all things that exist >did not come through Christ, thus making John contridict >himself. Unless you want to believe that Christ began >through himself.
Reply: This is not an issue with the ancient punctuation of John 1:4. Note what Origen says on this very subject: "On the words, 'All things were made by Him,' there is still one point to be examined. The 'word' is, as a notion, from 'life,' and yet we read, 'What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.' Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the 'all things were made by Him' subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course appears to be the preferable one."
> >And we both know the text does not say all other things.
Reply: It does not have it. It allows for exception, just as Hebrews 2:8 allows for exception.
>>> >>Tony-Reply7: You assume that there must be, but you've >>provided no evidence that this is something manditory, only >>something that is usually found. > >Response :Then don't you think that it is up to you to >illustrate something different, and support it with some >other Greek textbook?
Reply: I believe I am doing such right here. The problem is that there are a limited number of books in the Bible, so the possible places for such an event to even occure are minimal.
> > While I will grant you >>narration here (though 1:1-4 is more poetic), the inceptive >>imperfect is not even issolated the the use in a narrative, >>and thus, there can't be a change in narration if its not >>even in a narrative! This in itself demonstrates that such >>a use does not require such a change. > >Response: Well, all four gospels are narratives, John >1:1:18 are narratives as well. Wallace did not say whatelse >it could be used for, since your theology rides or dies on >this, then if you disagree, then demonstrate another usage, >and support it.
Reply: And I am demonstrating such a use right here. As Wallace indicates, it is not used ONLY in narratives though. You're right, he did not say what else it could be used for, but he did not limit either. I've explained to you other applications, but you don't see open to considering anything.
>>Tony-Reply7: Impossible, because Gen 1:1 includes the >>creation of the earth, which according to Job 3 , the >>angels were present for. > >Response: Well, all the angels were created through Christ, >so the beginning was before angels were created. So Christ >existed forever, and then all the angels came secondly.
Reply: That is only if you assume the ARCH involves the creation of everything. Genesis 1:1 does not include the angels and we know that the angels existed during Genesis 1:1.. Sooooo. The angels must have been created before the ARCH of Gen 1:1.
>> >>> >>Tony-Reply7: Please demonstrate that this is manditory. > >Response: You have to give me reason too first.
Reply: Well you claim it, so prove it.
> >>Tony-Reply7: Well when I refute your position on it and >>then you don't say anything back, that says a lot. > >Response: Actually, I supplied other forms of genitives that >those should be, and you simply said "no it isn't". >Futhermore, arche is a verbal noun, verbal nouns primarily >goes with subjective and objective genitives. Hence, that >is why we find, Rev 3:14 in the subjective genititive >catagory, instead of partitive, because it is a verbal noun.
Reply: The problem with that is the Hebrew does not support such an understand of the Greek in many of the LXX examples I provided. Thus, your reasoning is not accurate. When we consider the LXX and compare it to the Hebrew in order to understand it, we see that the normal use in the LXX is partitive. When we apply this to the NT, we come up with a different conclusion.
>>Tony-Reply7: You might want to consider what is used in >>scripture in a construction ala Rev 3:14. Is it ARCH or >>ARCWN for ruler? If you consider that usage, you'll find it >>is ARCWN, not ARCH. > >Response: Again, it can be demonstrated that on the basis >that arche is a verbal noun, Rev 3:14 should be a subjective >genitive,via Wallace, the creation of God ruler. Now >remember in the subjective genitive, the noun, uses the >verbal form. So instead of "beginning of God's creation" it >becomes "God's creation ruler". And we both know that >arche, as well as archon can denote rule or authority.
Reply: Except, this "rule" you are trying to establish simply falls apart as per the LXX. The Hebrew does not allow for your understand on many of the verses we've already discussed. Your conclusion is thus shown invalid. Further, you've failed to demonstrate ARCH to be used as ruler when used in a construction as found at Rev 3:14. Rather, ARCWN is what is used IN THAT CONSTRUCTION.
>>Tony-Reply7: Except that is impossible, for everything is >>out of God according to 1 Cor 8:6, so God had to do it >>first, or Jesus had nothing to work with. > >Response: Ek only denotes source, not order of a process.
Reply: You can't make something without the source having first provided what is needed.
>>Tony-Reply7: Going from memory, it was a pronoun. The >>issue was with ARCH, and then a genitive follows, followed >>by a genitive pronoun. We are dealing with ARCH and the >>genitive that follows, because the pronoun shows >>relationship to the group, including the part (the ARCH is a >>part of the whole, which then held onto by the pronoun). > >Response: And I think I labeled that one to be an >attributive contruction, meaning his firstfruits, or >something like that. Yeah, it was first of fruit, so that >would be firstfruits.
Reply: Again, it is partitive.. The first of the group of fruits would be the first part or the first one of the group of fruits.
>>>Tony-Reply7: No, you haven't, you've CLAIMED to. However, >>I've come back and answered your claims either by the >>context and/or the Hebrew, demonstrating your claims either >>unlikely or impossible. > >Response: Again, arche is a verbal noun. And you did not go >very deep into the Hebrew to demonstrate your point.
Reply: Simply because it is a verbal noun does not limit it to a particular use. I did not have to go far into Hebrew, because certain Hebrew words have a limited use, and if they do not allow for the view you are trying to present, they simply don't allow for it.
> >>Tony-Reply7: You're missing it. I didnt' say the Hebrew >>was partitive, but the Greek is translated from the Hebrew, >>so we check the Hebrew to see if it allows for your use of >>the Greek genitive or not. > >Response: But you are not figuring in the method of >interpretation of the LXX translator. We assume that the >LXX is a wooden literal translation, and in some parts it >may not be.
Reply: While that is true, certain passage if you read them between the two provide the same meaning... You have to assume that the meaning is different to get to your position. The obvious answer in such cases is that the use is the same between the two. Unless you have a gramamtical agenda of course.
>>Tony-Reply7: Well you can twist it however you want, but >>you are assuming a priori. I'd rather just accept it for >>what it says instead of twisting it into what I might want >>it to mean. > >Response: If your reasoning is correct, then there are two >almighty gods, thus destroying Duet 6:4. Two beings cannot >share the same nature, and one be considered lesser being >than the other.
Reply: Not at all. Jesus is limited by what God does, God has no limitation. I share the nature of my Father, yet there is a temporal distinction between us.
-Tony
|