|
>>(Tony-Reply3) >>I do not object to a qualitative rendering. However, being >>rendered qualitatively, you can STILL indefinitize it. You >>have to demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative and CANNOT >>be made definite or indefinite. Otherwise your position >>does not stand. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response: My position is that is not that a person *cannot* >indefinitize it, my position that it is qualitative shows >that a) the largest portion of preverbal anarthrous >predicate nominatives fall into this catergory according to >wallace, and b) the context of the passage points to this.
(Tony-Reply4) Actually, if we go by the KJV, I believe we'll find that most PNs are translated indefinitely. If you take QEOS qualitatively, and you cannot take it definitely, and you cannot demonstrate that it is PURELY qualitative, you have no basis for objecting to the indefinite translation. (/Tony-Reply4)
>Therefore my posistion is that it is not necessary to make >theos indefinite. >> >>>(Tony-Reply3) >>Why? What is your scriptural basis for this. You are now >>working based on your a priori assumption. This is called >>eisegesis, not exegesis. > >Response: Dude, they would not even pronounce his name let >alone call another being by the same noun.
(Tony-Reply4) QEOS is not a name, it is a title. The Jews had no problem using the term QEOS at that time, as evident in scripture. (/Tony-Reply4)
>> >>Regarding flesh, SARX is a mass noun, not a count noun, so >>it does not compare. > >Repsonse: I was illustrating that it is a qualitative usage >nothing more. If you want a qualitative usage of a count >noun check out the NWT of Matthew 12:8. I would also >tranlsate it qualitatively.
(Tony-Reply4) Certainly it is, but there is no objection to translating it definitely either. In light of QEOS in John 1:1c not being purely qualitiative, it is to be taken as qualitative-indefinite. (/Tony-Reply4)
>>>(Tony-Reply3) >>And hence I believe it is an inceptive imperfect! Christ >>was in the world when he came to be in the world. I believe >>Christ was in the beginning at the simultaneous moment that >>the ARCH came to be. Hence Jesus is the ARCH (Rev 3:14). > >Response; Again inceptive imperfect deal with someone >beginning to do an action, if John had wanted to say that >the Son was created he would have used egeneto like he did >for everything else in the passage that has been created. >John specifically applies en to Christ egeneto to everything >else. And Rev 3:14 means originator or ruler.
(Tony-Reply4) John used HN in verse 10, where it is clearly inceptive. He used GEGONEN in verse 4. It depends on what aspect he wants to stress. If he wants to stress him being in the state he entered or if he wants to stress him entering the state. Obviously in verses 1 and 10 he wanted to stress him being in the state he entered.
As for Rev 3:14, originator is ruled out by the use of TOU QEOU, while ruler would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5. (/Tony-Reply4)
> > >>This has nothing to do with reading theology into the text, >>but simply taking it for what it says, based on the concept >>of HN being an inceptive imperfect. You are the one >>reading your theology by assuming that the imperfect denotes >>eternal existence, when there is no real basis for such. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response: Sure I have basis, inceptive imperfects dont >function the way you are implying.
(Tony-Reply4)Nice claim. Care to back it up? It functions exactly as I have stated in John 1:10, your theological presupposition seems to limit you from accepting it in John 1:1 though. (/Tony-Reply4)
>> >>(Tony-Reply3) >>GEGONEN is not the imperfect, but the perfect. Life came >>to be in Christ. Prior to life coming into him, >>obviously life was not in him. I'm not sure if you really >>understand what the inceptive imperfect is. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > > >Response: The inceptive imperfect " the imperfect is often >used to stress THE BEGINNING of an action, with the >implications that it continued for some time." Wallace p >544. > >futhermore what are you looking at? gegonen is in verse 3 >and the part about life is in verse 4. > >3. panta di autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto oude en o >gegonen. > >all things through him existed and apart from him nothing >existed which has become. > >That has nothing to do with Christ life. > >en auto zon in him was life, meaning life always was in him >eternally. > >you seem to be mixing up verses.
(Tony-Reply4) You are using incorrect punctuation is the problem. The NA27 GNT places a full stop between hHN and hO GEGONEN. According to the testimony of the early church fathers, hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4, as done by the New Jerusalem Bible.
Theophilus: Book II, Chapter XXII. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence."
Tertullian: Against Hermogenes,Chapter XX. "Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made."
Origen: Commentary on the Book of John, Book II, Chapter IX, P4. "Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, "For in Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him; "and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made;""
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1. "The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.""
Athanasius, Against the Heathen, Part III, §42. "as also the Divine says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.""
Thus Robertson notes: "Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation. . . That which has come into being (Joh_1:3) in the Logos was life." (/Tony-Reply4)
>>(Tony-Reply3) >>Not always. Psalms 8:5 does not have that, yet ELOHIM is >>undoubtably used in reference to the angels yet there is no >>plural verb. > >Response: Or it could be refering to God himself and not >angels.
(Tony-Reply4) According to the LXX and Paul's quotation at Hebrews , it is angels. (/Tony-Reply4)
>> >>You continue to claim that he is given the attributes and >>eternality of God Almighty, but you are failing to >>demonstrate such, you only claim it. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response: Actually I have you are just making up your own >grammaticle rules here.
(Tony-Reply4) I can demonstrate my claims by example, you do nothing more than make empty claims. You have yet to demonstrate your position on anything even a single time. (/Tony-Reply4)
>>> >>(Tony-Reply3) >>Actually, as I can demonstrate, they were angels... in >>representation of God. But again, another topic. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response: Sure later it is. >>(Tony-Reply3) >>If HN is inceptive in John 1:10, what is your basis for >>dismissing it as such in 1:1? > >REsponse: Context, John 1:10 context is driven by verse 9, >the one who comes into the world, in 1:1 eternality is in >view. >> >>See, you assume that Jesus was eternal, you still cannot >>demonstrate it. Even if HN is not inceptive, consider this. >> Let us say the ARCH was 20 billion years ago. hO LOGOS was >>there. What is to say that hO LOGOS didn't come into >>existence 25 billion years ago? There is nothing to say one >>way or another. You work entirely off of your a priori >>assumption that he is. Circular reasoning at its best here. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response:Or you can say 26 billion the logos was there, or >28, it does not matter, wherever you put the beginnig the >logos was there and especcially when you cnosider the use of >en verse egeneto in John 1:1-18 it is obvious what John is >doing, if Chrsit were created egeneto would be applied to >him, and yuo don't see that until verse 18.
(Tony-Reply4) You're still not getting it. You assume eternality, but the text is 100% ambiguous to anyone who really understands the language. HN, if we do not take it inceptively, denotes him being in the state of existence at the ARCH, it has no bearing on if he has eternally been there or only been there for a limited time prior. (/Tony-Reply4)
>> >>Yes it does, but they are not purely qualitative as >>you are arguing for John 1:1c. That is the difference. They >>can all be taken definitely or indefinitely. >>(/Tony-Reply3) > >Response: I never said that Theos could not be taken >indefinitely I said that the qualtitative usage is the best >canidate. >>
(Tony-Reply4) And in light of that, it is not purely qualitative, and so it is indefinitized, ala the NWT, thus resulting in a perfectly acceptable translation. (/Tony-Reply4).
Regards, Tony
|