|
Ok, tonight I am suppose to upload my hard drive, I just bought Windows Xp, so I might not be online after this one, but I will not leave you hanging, so I will answer this one. And if everything is a go, then I will try to get back tomorrow, but if I don't then you will know why, plus I got to go to class in a minute here, so this will be brief.
>Reply: You need to go waaaaayyyyy back and read, because >yes I did and GAR has nothing to do with it. In fact, it >has nothing to do with translation, just reading.
Response: (oso grins) I figured you'd say something like that. That is funny.
>Reply: The word except is not in Hebrews 2:8 either. So >this argument goes out the window.
Response: (oso closes the window) you said that 1 Cor provided the exception for Heb 2, then you said likewise John 1:4 provided the exception for John 1:3, the difference is that 1 Cor actually has the words *except* in them, whereas John 1:4 does not. >> >Reply: Actually, Christ is not subject to himself either, >obviously. That makes no sense. So Christ himself would be >excluded from that group as well as this.
Response: Well Christ could not be subjected to himself, because unlike John 1:3, in Heb 2, Christ is passive, meaning the Father is the putting things under him, in John 1:3 Christ shares an active role in creation, so the topic is not what the Father has done, but what has been created outside of Christ (activity), and according to John nothing has became, unless Christ created it, and that would include the Son as well.
>Reply: My point is a grammatical one. You can't overcome >the grammatical aspect either, because it is a parallel.
Response: Your grammaticle point was placed in order to show that there was an exception in John 1:3, I am showing you that your grammaticle arguement for an exception is limited to Heb and not at all related to John. You jumped to 1 Cor 15 for support and said John 1:4 is the equavelent, but it does not have the words except in the passage. > >Reply: Because verses are artificial distinctions placed in >at a later date. Yet we note that the NWT translates it >into the sentence of verse 4.
Response: But it says " What has come into existance **by means of him was life**"
The problem is the *by means of him* part, points to Christ creating all things, not himself being created. So it still disagrees with you. > > >Reply: You added a period. Take away the period and keep >reading. What misrepresentation!
Response: Ok, let's delete the period, it still points to all things beign created by him, not himself being what was created. >> >Reply: Again, I'm not using him for theological views. It >is just coincidence that we agree here. I'm using him for >his knowledge of Greek grammar, and what is gramamtically >acceptable and what is not. Obviously this is >grammatically acceptable. He knew the language better than >we can ever imagine.
Response: He may have known the langugae, but he was notorious for his eisegesis of the text, he constantly rendered NT themes back into the OT, and allegorized everything. He was never a realible exegete, so it is likely that he is adding his theology into the text again, since that is what he did with just about every passage. > >Reply: GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,.
Response: Grammer is not enough to like the passages together, since they are discussing totally different topics. > >Reply: We don't have to, because we don't see it in Hebrews >2:8 either. However, when reading Hebrews 2:8, we know 1) >that the Father is obviously not it. We know this because >basic logic tells us such and also because other scripture >tells us such. The same reasoning is easily appliable to >John 1:3.
Response: The same reasoning does not apply to John 1 once we read John according to it's own context, and then read Heb 2 according to it's own context. Christ is active in John, therefore, John would be contridicting himself, if Christ were outside his own creation. > >Reply: I'm not discussing topical issues, I'm discussing >the grammar, which was the focal point of your argument.
Response: I am glad you admitted that you are not discussing context, you finally realized that. good, my focal point is context by the way.
>Reply: I've demonstrated it grammatically. You can't see >to accept it though and you've not refuted my grammatical >argument on Hebrews at all. yet another case of where I've >demonstrated my point, and you just claim I'm wrong.
Response: Your grammitcal arguement was only used to supply a link to John, however, since we don't just look at grammer, we also look at context (something you finally admitted you ignore) then we see they don't link at all. > >Reply: Because 1 cor 15:27 isn't the issue, Hebrews 2:8 is.
Response: Then why did you bring it up then? >Reply: You would have engaged the grammar by now if you had >anything to overcome it. The fact is, you don't. I've >engaged your contextual argument, using verse 4, and using >Hebrews 2:8 I've engaged your gramamtical argument. So far >you've come back with nothing but denial.
Response: Tony, there is nothing to overcome, if the context is different, then there is no link at all. All you are doing is making an observation, but not an arguement. Verse 4 of John was linked to 1 Cor, but Cor has except in it, verse 4 does not, therefore their is no link. In Heb God the Father is the one doing the subjection, in John the Son is active, not passive, so they are not linking at all. You really don't have a point. > >Reply: It makes perfect sense actually. John 1:3 B isn't >talking about Christ being the intermediate agent, but the >location in which things were created. In other words, God >created in christ (Col 1:16).
Response: So you ignore dia in the passage, when you say that Christ is not being discussed as an intermediate agent?
Being locative, nothing was >created apart from Christ. If Christ does not exist apart >from himself, nothing was created apart from him. That >doesn't mean he created himself, but that he didn't exist >apart from himself (which is not really possible).
Response: That is not what John is talking about however, he is talking about all things that became as a result of Christ, or apart from Christ. That is the issue. > > >Reply: Then why won't you engage my argument? You're >running around it, but you won't actually touch it. I've >provided both grammatical (based on the gramamr of Hebrews >2:8) and contextual (John 1:4) reasons for my position. >You've failed to engage them both.
Response: Well Tony you really don't have an arguement to engage in, you link two verses that have nothing to do with each other. Contextually John 1:4 does not provide the exception, becuase it does not say except like 1 Cor, and it makes no sense the way htat you translate it in verse 4. >Reply: We apply GRAMMAR. >GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,GRAMMAR,.
Response: And context. Well you said you ignore it, so I understand. >Reply: If the gramamr is the same, which it is, there is no >reason not to allow for an exception in John 1:3, especially >if it is listed in the very next verse!
Response: Uh the grammer is the same, but context does not allow it. But you said that you are'nt dealing with it, so oh well. > >Reply: One example would START to give you a basis, but it >certainly wouldn't prove your case. The weight of the >evidence still would remain against you.
Response: Uh no, the evidence is for me. > >Reply: You've not given me any reason for it to not be >partitive in the verse I've provided. Your claims of other >types in the LXX are typically disproven by the Hebrew text.
Response: Actually, I would have to look at the Hebrew, I just glanced at it, secondly, you are assuming those are wooden literal translations as well.
> You've further given me no reason not to accept it as >partitive in mark, which is, funny enough, how 99.99% of the >translations render it. A subjective rendering makes no >sense in Rev 3. "he is the faithful and true witness, God's >creation begins". LOL. Doesn't work.
Response: Apply that to a person, God creation Beginner or Ruler. > >Reply: The key is that the construction provides a certain >semantic signaling, as witness by the numerous examples of >such. This signaling does not support your position, and by >the examples available, would not provide the signaling you >are arguing for to a 1st century reader at all.
Response: Yes it would because the signal would be either subjective, objective, or attributive, not partitive. > >Reply: Actually, they are. I've demostrated such from the >Hebrew text, where they never allow for another type.
Response: There ya go assuming again, it may not be literal translation, I actually did not look those up in the BHS, but I can, I bet they are not partitive there either. But you'd have to give me the verses, but again, those verses have nothing to do with Rev 3 anyway. > >Reply: Except, such a translation makes no sense at all. >"God's creation begins" makes no sense when ARCH is a >substantive.
Response: Apply that to a person, God creation ruler.
>Reply: Which are of significant debate and still do not >support your view, because they mean ARCH in the sense that >I am arguing for.
Response: No, becuase it is either objective, subjective, or attributive. > >Reply: Wallace, theologically, MUST not accept Rev 3:14 as >partitive, because of his theology. If he did, he'd be >booted from DTS in a heartbeat and rejected by the >trinitarian community.
Response: Nonsense, you are trying to discredit him, because unlike your made up inceptive, I have support you don't.
>Reply: You've failed to demonstrate such. The hebrew text, >which is what the LXX was translated from, typically >demonstrates very clearly that the uses are in fact >partitive. You deny this, but you've yet to demonstrate it. > Further, Brenton's LXX continually supports my position.
Response: Brenton's LXX has nothign to do with REv 3:14. >>Reply: Special pleading. You can't demonstrate your point, >so this is what you resort to. Everyone reading this knows >it too.. You just claim, claim, claim. I've given probable >linguistic and grammatical cause for my position, supporting >my position by example. You've said its a verbal noun, >provided no examples, and made a lot of claims. The >evidence stands on my side by a long shot.
Response: How is it special pleading, when I have scholarship on my side? Have given you numerous examples from both subjective and objective genitives, and even answered your supposed partitives in the LXX? Dude, I answered you on every level. > >Reply: Except that still does not work, because Christ is >defined purely as the intermediate agent. The ultimate >agent, the source, is the originator. Not the intermediate >agent.
Response: Again, if Christ is intermediate tehn he has a hands on part in the creation, and since the creation comes through him, he can be called their orginator in relation to them. >Reply: And they would have read John 6:57, where Christ >says, "I live because of the Father..." showing that God is >the source of Christ's life (John 1:4). You again come to >Rev 3:14 with a theological a priori view.
Response: He was talking about his humanity, not his preexistance, and John 1:4 they would have read and said "hey this makes no sense" and then they would have read Rev and said "oh now I see." >>Reply: BAHAHAHAHA. Funny, as soon as I brought up the >Hebrew at each of the verses you "delt with" you suddenly >stopped talking about them, because you knew that your >position was impossible. It is not supported there, nor by >Brenton.
Response: actually I did not even look to hard at the Hebrew, but they are probably not partitive there either. And Brenton would have to respond to my arguements as well, and then again, teh Lxx would have nothign to do with Rev 3. > >Reply: You keep claiming it destroy's the inceptive use of >HN, but you can't demonstrate it. CANNOT DEMONSTRATE. Want >to make sure you see that loud and clear. You need to >demonstrate in the Bible where one is shown to be a person >when he is not a distinct being. I see no reason to accept >that Jesus is a different person but not a different being >as well. Again, you cannot demonstrate your view, you can >only claim it.
Response: Sure I can, if there is only one God, not two, then one has the same being as the other, the only way to harmonize them is to say that there is one Being three persons, which scripture illustrates. > >Reply: That is what your logic dictates. If I followed >Trinitarian logic, and I was CONSISTENT in it, then yes I >would. Fortunately, I don't use that faulty logic.
Response: So there are two god's with the same being? > > >Reply: You've failed to demonstrate that God and Jesus do >either, which Hebrews 1:3 expressly shows us that htey do >not.
Response: That what it says, Christ is the excate representation of his being. There is only one God, and it ain't Abraham.
------------ En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos
|