1 Corinthians 14:5

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ Trevor Hawes trevorh at poczta.onet.pl
Tue Apr 22 06:22:22 EDT 2003

 

[] John 18:24 APESTEILEN [] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ Cannot find an answer to this in the archives or other resources yet,and wanted to ask your opinions:(Remember, please do not get into discussions of layers oftheology/doctrine what ever your persuasion. I just want to get anunderstanding into the translation of what the greek meant at thattime.)1 Corinthians 14:5There is the word “INA” (In order that) in there which does not comethrough to most English translations. The construction is usually that”Something is done.. in order that.. something else may/will happen”.Can this verse be translated from the greek as:”Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but rather in order that youmay prophesy; and greater (is) the (one) prophesying than the (one)speaking in tongues, except unless he interprets, in order that thechurch may receive edification.”?Could it be possible that first, rather interestingly placed “INA” (inorder that) refers to the speaking in tongues such that the first partcan be rendered:”Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but (I would) rather (have youspeak in tongues) in order that you may prophesy”Trevor HawesPoland————————————————————–

 

[] John 18:24 APESTEILEN[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 22 06:36:06 EDT 2003

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ [] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ At 12:22 PM +0200 4/22/03, Trevor Hawes wrote:>Cannot find an answer to this in the archives or other resources yet,>and wanted to ask your opinions:>(Remember, please do not get into discussions of layers of>theology/doctrine what ever your persuasion. I just want to get an>understanding into the translation of what the greek meant at that>time.)> >1 Corinthians 14:5>There is the word “INA” (In order that) in there which does not come>through to most English translations. The construction is usually that>“Something is done.. in order that.. something else may/will happen”.> >Can this verse be translated from the greek as:>“Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but rather in order that you>may prophesy; and greater (is) the (one) prophesying than the (one)>speaking in tongues, except unless he interprets, in order that the>church may receive edification.”?> >Could it be possible that first, rather interestingly placed “INA” (in>order that) refers to the speaking in tongues such that the first part>can be rendered:> >“Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but (I would) rather (have you>speak in tongues) in order that you may prophesy”The error here lies in the expectation that every hINA followed by asubjunctive indicates a purpose clause; but in fact that’s not the case;very frequently in Hellenistic Greek and later Greek a clause introduced byhINA and followed by a subjunctive is a substantive clause that is oftenequivalent to an infinitive–although it MAY indicate purpose or result.Text: QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GLWSSAIS, MALLON DE hINA PROFHTEUHTE.In this instance hINA PROFHTEUHTE means the same as would hUMAS PROFHTEUEINso that the entire sentence could read: QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEINGLWSSAIS, MALLON DE PROFHTEUEIN, and it is most simply Englished as, “Iwish you all to speak in tongues, but (even) more I wish you all toprophesy.” If one feels some strong need to translate the hINA +subjunctive more literally, it could be, “but more (do I wish) that youshould prophesy.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that'[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Apr 23 01:50:42 EDT 2003

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ [] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 05:22 AM, Trevor Hawes wrote:> Can this verse be translated from the greek as:> “Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but rather in order that you> may prophesy; and greater (is) the (one) prophesying than the (one)> speaking in tongues, except unless he interprets, in order that the> church may receive edification.”?> > Could it be possible that first, rather interestingly placed “INA” (in> order that) refers to the speaking in tongues such that the first part> can be rendered:> > “Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but (I would) rather (have you> speak in tongues) in order that you may prophesy”Hi Trevor:After certain types of verbs, hINA often introduces a nominal clause that marks objective. For example, after verbs of wishing, hINA introduces the objective of the person expressing the wish, or the content of the wish, if you will. In this case, as BDAG points out, the final (purpose) meaning “is greatly weakened or disappears altogether.” In such cases, hINA, if translated at all, may be rendered “that.” It functions as a substitute for an infinitive or an accusative with infinitive. Types of verbs that take this construction are wish, desire, strive; take care, be ashamed, be afraid; request, demand; summon, encourage, order; cause, bring about; permit, grant.I recently ran into an interesting example where it looks like Paul is going to use the accusative with infinitive construction, but then interrupts with a vocative and a prepositional phrase, and continues with hINA as a marker of the objective that looks like it originally was going to be expressed with the accusative with infinitive construction:1 Cor 1.10 PARAKALW … hUMAS, ADELFOI, DIA TOU ONOMATOS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, hINA TO AUTO LEGHTE PANTES KAI MH EN hUMIN SCISMATA, HTE DE KATHRTISMENOI EN TWi AUTWi NOI KAI EN THi AUTHi GNWMHi.It looks like Paul is going to say PARAKALW hUMAS EIPEIN, K.T.L. But after the interruption of ADELFOI and DIA TOU ONOMATOS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, he changes to the hINA construction, which, as BDAG points out, is equivalent to the accusative with infinitive construction.============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that'[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Apr 23 02:16:51 EDT 2003

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that’ [] John 18:24 APESTEILEN On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 12:50 AM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> After certain types of verbs, hINA often introduces a nominal clause > that marks objective.This should read, “hINA often introduces a nominal clause *and* marks objective.” It is hINA, of course, that marks objective, not the clause!============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] 1 Corinthians 14:5 – ‘In order that'[] John 18:24 APESTEILEN

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Scott Stocking scottsox at conxxus.com
Fri May 12 14:46:48 EDT 2006

 

[] When did classification of nouns by gender start? [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect What sort of aspect should the present infinitive LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 have?My personal feeling is that it is a continuous punctiliar (“I want you tocontinue to speak in tongues”), but I know of one person who insists it iscontinuous uninterrupted (i.e., he claims to speak/pray in tongues 24/7).This is a ridiculous notion I know, but my friend seems convinced of his ownknowledge of the present infinitive as continuous uninterrupted, based ontwo obscure comments from Blaiklock and Jay not at all related to 1 Cor14:5. Some of us who have been discussing the issue with him have referredhim to this list to see what kind of response he might get, but he hasn’tposted or joined here as of this point to my knowledge. Scott StockingPastor, Congregational Christian ChurchAdjunct Professor, Lincoln Christian College

 

[] When did classification of nouns by gender start?[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri May 12 15:30:11 EDT 2006

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? [] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060512/62349e2f/attachment.pl

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sat May 13 08:01:10 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect > What sort of aspect should the present infinitive LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 have?> My personal feeling is that it is a continuous punctiliar (“I want you to> continue to speak in tongues”), but I know of one person who insists it is> continuous uninterrupted (i.e., he claims to speak/pray in tongues 24/7).> This is a ridiculous notion I know, but my friend seems convinced of his own> knowledge of the present infinitive as continuous uninterrupted, based on> two obscure comments from Blaiklock and Jay not at all related to 1 Cor> 14:5. Some of us who have been discussing the issue with him have referred> him to this list to see what kind of response he might get, but he hasn’t> posted or joined here as of this point to my knowledge.> > Scott StockingIt is not clear to me what “continuous punctiliar” is supposed to mean.Basically, the present infinitive has the imperfective aspect, while the aorist infinitive has a perfective aspect. Your friend would find it worthwhile to look up all the infinitives of LALEW in the NT and categorize them as to the present and aorist infinitives.With an aorist infinitive the speech is considered as a whole, usually a one-time event. For instance, aorist is used in Acts 21:39 “Allow me to speak LALHSAI to the people.” It was a one-time event. It doesn’t matter how long it took, but it was not repeated at several occasions.Within the category of imperfective (non-completed) aspect, the three main types are:1. Continuous aspect2. Iterative aspect3. General aspect (used in general, timeless statements)By iterative aspect is meant a repeated action. It looks like your friend has been hung up on the idea of present tense always implying continuous aspect when in this and most other cases of LALEW the repeated action is meant rather than continuous action.You can approximate this in English by translating the present infinitive as:”I want all of you to be speaking in tongues” (not continuously, but repeatedly)QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GLWSSAISHad Paul used an aorist, it could have been approximated by the English:”I want all of you to have spoken in tongues” (just a one time event).Iver Larsen

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Scott Stocking scottsox at conxxus.com
Sat May 13 08:37:39 EDT 2006

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? [] What NT Bible do you reccomend for a newcomer? [This is the text of the response gfsomsel sent to me via e-mail. It was”scrubbed” by the list, evidently for an incompatible font.]I don’t know as this fully answers your question, but I think it pointstoward a solution.7. Time Element in Tense. But for the indicative the Greek tenses would havehad a simple history. There are no past tenses in the subjunctive. Thefuture subjunctive is an anomaly of very late Greek. The future optativeoccurs only in indirect discourse and is not found in the N. T. The timeelement in the infinitive is confined to indirect discourse and MELLW. Timein the participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind ofaction, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms. But inthe indicative the three grades of time had tenses of their own. The Greeksevidently felt that there was no need for time in the other modes except ina relative sense. As a matter of fact, the real time of subjunctive,optative, and imperative is future in relation to speaker or writer. It wasevidently with difficulty (cf. absence of time in Hebrew) that time wasexpressed in a positive (non-relative) sense even in the indicative. It isonly by the augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearlyexpressed. “Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with anadverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has an exactparallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to be Indo-Germanic.”There is no really distinctive form for the present indicative. The futurewas a later development out of both the present and aorist. See chapterVIII, Conjugation of Verb. The augment was not always used. Homer used itonly when it suited him. But past time was objective and the three kinds ofaction (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with thetenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktionsart also in thepresent and future time, but the tense development did not go on to the fullextent here. There are only two tense-forms in the present and practicallyonly one in the future. ** But both punctiliar and linear action areexpressed, but not differentiated, in the present time by the same tense, asis true also of the future. ** The kinds of action exist, but separatetense-forms unfortunately do not occur. There might thus have been ninetenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), threelinear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, future).Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in thematter of time some grammars give a separate treatment to the indicativetenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicativeperhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the timeelement is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thusruns through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action).A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ofHistorical Research_, pp. 824-25._____________Note the section set off with asterisks. I think sometimes that too much ismade of such distinctions — especially when it becomes a judgment call. Itmust also be remembered that the manner in which an action is described inanything other than the indicative (e.g. aorist as opposed to present) saysnothing regarding how it actually occurs. It only sets forth the way thewriter is conceiving it. I think one should avoid a “theology of thetenses.”georgegfsomsel

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?[] What NT Bible do you reccomend for a newcomer?

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Sat May 13 09:52:42 EDT 2006

 

[] What NT Bible do you reccomend for a newcomer? [] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? 1 Corinthians 14:5 QELW DE PANTAS hUMAN LALEIN GLWSSAIS MALLOM DE HINA PROFHTEUTEI don’t think your friends view would work to well because DE HINA PROFHTEUTE is parellel with QELW DE PANTAS hUMAN LALEIN.i.e. I want you all to speak in tongues = but even more I want you even more to prophesy. In both cases the subjuntive and the infinitive are complements. So if LALEIN is to be done 24/7 so should PROFHTEUTE be done 24/7 which is seems to be impossible. –Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: “Scott Stocking” <scottsox at conxxus.com> > What sort of aspect should the present infinitive LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 have? > My personal feeling is that it is a continuous punctiliar (“I want you to > continue to speak in tongues”), but I know of one person who insists it is > continuous uninterrupted (i.e., he claims to speak/pray in tongues 24/7). > This is a ridiculous notion I know, but my friend seems convinced of his own > knowledge of the present infinitive as continuous uninterrupted, based on > two obscure comments from Blaiklock and Jay not at all related to 1 Cor > 14:5. Some of us who have been discussing the issue with him have referred > him to this list to see what kind of response he might get, but he hasn’t > posted or joined here as of this point to my knowledge. > > > > Scott Stocking > > Pastor, Congregational Christian Church > > Adjunct Professor, Lincoln Christian College > > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] What NT Bible do you reccomend for a newcomer?[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Sat May 13 11:55:14 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? Scott:Iver wrote:> With an aorist infinitive the speech is considered> as a whole, usually a one-time event. For instance,> aorist is used in > Acts 21:39 “Allow me to speak LALHSAI to the> people.” It was a one-time event. I just want to dissent from this, as many others do.The idea of the Aorist as a “one-time event” is adescription I find far more inaccurate than just aboutany other term you could assign to it. I would equallyreject if someone where to say that it is “not aone-time event.” How many ‘times’ the action or eventtook/takes place has no relationship to the Aorist, orany other tense. Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat May 13 10:25:04 EDT 2006

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer? [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060513/ca6ae75c/attachment.pl

 

[] What NT Bible do you recommend for a newcomer?[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sat May 13 17:01:04 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Iver Larson wrote:> Basically, the present infinitive has the imperfective aspect, while the aorist > infinitive has a perfective aspect. Your friend would find it worthwhile to look up > all the infinitives of LALEW in the NT and categorize them as to the present > and aorist infinitives.Along the lines of Iver’s suggestion, Scott’s and my friend was in fact given all the occurrences in the New Testament and the LXX of the present infinitive LALEIN to look up and see if they require or expect the translation “to speak CONTINUALLY.” This apparently was not convincing.So, to be even more specific, this is what Scott’s and my friend wrote (on another forum) that caused us both to question him on his insistence that LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 means to continually speak in tongues 24/7. I only quote it all to show that this “interpretation” is also being laid at the feet of Greek Profs Jay and Blaiklock:> 1 Cor 14:5 — “QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GKWSSAIS” — “I wish, I > want, I desire ALL of you to speak CONTINUALLY in tongues.” > “I want” — Behind Paul’s words is the Holy Spirit. PAUL’S DESIRE IS GOD’S > DESIRE TOO.> “all of you” — every Xtian without exception, because 1 Cor is addressed to > “ALL that in EVERY place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:2) > “CONTINUALLY” — because LALEIN is a present infinitive, which, says Dr.> Eric G. Jay in his “NT Greek” (p.101) “The present infinitive is used of an > action which is prolonged or repeated … IT IS ONLY EMPLOYED WHEN > ATTENTION IS BEING DRAWN TO THE PROLONGING OR REPETITION OF > THE ACTION.” > He cites “hUPAGW hALIEUEIN” — “I’m going back to the fishing trade” (as > opposed to a nice afternoon’s one-off fishing) by Peter in John 21:3. And one > sleepless night I discovered my old Bible College lecturer Prof E. M. Blaiklock > made the same point in “The Bible and I” p.124 where he translates John the > Baptist’s “He must increase, I must decrease” as “He must CONTINUALLY > INCREASE, I must CONTINUALLY DECREASE.”Along with Scott’s initial question, a related question is the validity of our friend’s translation of 1 Cor 14:5 as being: “I wish, I want, I desire ALL of you to speak CONTINUALLY in tongues” — a practice which he attempts to do (i.e., pray in tongues 24/7) and is also attempting to convince others on the other forum (who do not know Greek) likewise to do, having for all practical purposes almost turned it into a command (but that issue is likely for a different forum). Since our friend does seem to respect well-taught students and professors of Greek, Scott (and now I) turned to for feedback from some of y’all.Thanks!Eric S. Weiss———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat May 13 18:00:25 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060513/a3e47e6a/attachment.pl

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sat May 13 18:29:24 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] Not just lalein–I Cor 14:5 For some reason, I cannot read gfsomsel’s posts on , whether usingInternet Explorer or Firefox.This is part of what he wrote, apparently (in a cc: to me)”gfsomsel at juno.com” <gfsomsel at juno.com> wrote: Gentlemen, I repeat a portion of the section I noted in Robertson previously “But both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differentiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also ofthe future.”This really is not a forum for developing arguments to support one’s position on any point. It is rather to understand what the text says as a linguistic phenomenon. I personally do not care to be placed in a position of engaging in some form of apologetics or elenctics. georgegfsomsel_________Please let me clarify. Neither I nor Scott (I think I can speak for Scott here) are arguing about a doctrine or position. I was afraid my post from our friend might give that impression, but I did not mean it to, and apologize for any such misunderstanding. I only included it in its entirety to show the claim our friend was making for the present infinitive, and that he was supporting it with the works of two Greek grammarians, Jay and Blaiklock.What I wish to know is if a supportable and reasonable argument can be made that LALEIN GLWSSAIS in 1 Corinthians 14:5 does mean to speak thus continuously (perhaps even 24/7) because it is a present infinitive, and indeed must mean to speak thus continuously because it is a present infinitive. I say “no” for reasons I have already given our friend, but I would like some support for either position, if anyone wishes or is able to give it. GRAMMAR, not doctrinal position, is all I’m asking for.Eric S. Weiss———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] Not just lalein–I Cor 14:5

[] Not just lalein–I Cor 14:5 Dave Smith dave at musicsmythe.com
Sat May 13 20:01:41 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] I Cor. 14:5 LALEIN alone or in context Friends,One can not just look at the present infinitive of LALEIN, you must look at the whole phrase and paragraph. Everything is a present tense until LABH in verse five. Now if Paul wants everyone to speak in tongues all the time, why does he follow with the list of the three “shut-ups” (SIGATO v.s 28, 30, 34). There was confusion in Corinth, many were speaking in tongues, all at once, singing all at once, prophesying all at once, but the Paul says in the assembly, folks are only to speak one at a time, in a certain sequence, and there is to be no background chatter (v.34). It is also clear that everyone does not have every gift, and when referring to tongues, Paul says, “All are not apostles, are they” All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All do not work miracles, do they? All are not having (ECOUSIN) healing gifts, do they? All are not speaking (LALOUSIN) with tongues, are they? All are not interpreting, are they?” It is clear that the use of the present with the gifts is an idiom, that is, when the gifts were exercised from time to time. It is comparable to a tree bearing fruit. It happens seasonally, not all the time, and not every minute of the day, or every week. This usage is clear in Matthew 3:10 MH POIOUN KARPON, “the one [tree] that is not bearing fruit [in season]”. Trees do not produce fruit everyday.This is either a customary present or an iterative present (Dana and Mantey, 183-184). I suggest that we be careful to view the whole context, for the Apostle also uses the aorist in reference to speaking in tongues v. 6, saying speaking in tongues [at any time] is only useful in combination with one of the other gifts, such as prophecy, revelation, teaching, or the word of knowledge. It is a median of communication that demands an accompanying gift to function properly.This is my first post folks. Have patience with me if I have done something improper.Dave SmithHudson, NC

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] I Cor. 14:5 LALEIN alone or in context

[] I Cor. 14:5 LALEIN alone or in context Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Sat May 13 20:26:52 EDT 2006

 

[] Not just lalein–I Cor 14:5 [] Acts 16:25 praying and singing? Friends,One can not just look at the present infinitive of LALEIN, you must look at the whole phrase and paragraph. Everything is a present tense until LABH in verse five. Now if Paul wants everyone to speak in tongues all the time, why does he follow with the list of the three “shut-ups” (SIGATO v.s 28, 30, 34). There was confusion in Corinth, many were speaking in tongues, all at once, singing all at once, prophesying all at once, but St.Paul says in the assembly, folks are only to speak one at a time, in a certain sequence, and there is to be no background chatter (v.34). It is also clear that everyone does not have every gift, and when referring to tongues, Paul says, “All are not apostles, are they” All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All do not work miracles, do they? All are not having (ECOUSIN) healing gifts, do they? All are not speaking (LALOUSIN) with tongues, are they? All are not interpreting, are they?”(12:29-30). It is clear that the use of the present with the gifts is an idiom, that is, when the gifts were exercised from time to time. It is comparable to a tree bearing fruit. It happens seasonally, not all the time, and not every minute of the day, or every week. Matthew 3:10 MH POIOUN KARPON, “the [tree] that is not bearing fruit [in season]”. Trees do not produce fruit everyday.This is either a customary present or an iterative present (Dana and Mantey, 183-184). I suggest that we be careful to view the whole context, for the Apostle also uses the aorist in reference to speaking in tongues v. 6, saying speaking in tongues [as an event] is only useful in combination with one of the other gifts, such as prophecy, revelation, teaching, or the word of knowledge. It is a median of communication that demands an accompanying gift to function properly.This is my first post folks. Have patience with me if I have done something improper.Dave SmithHudson, NC

 

[] Not just lalein–I Cor 14:5[] Acts 16:25 praying and singing?

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sun May 14 05:36:57 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect > Along the lines of Iver’s suggestion, Scott’s and my friend was in fact given all> the occurrences in the New Testament and the LXX of the present infinitive> LALEIN to look up and see if they require or expect the translation “to speak> CONTINUALLY.” This apparently was not convincing.> > So, to be even more specific, this is what Scott’s and my friend wrote (on> another forum) that caused us both to question him on his insistence that> LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 means to continually speak in tongues 24/7. I only quote> it all to show that this “interpretation” is also being laid at the feet of Greek Profs> Jay and Blaiklock:> >> 1 Cor 14:5 — “QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GKWSSAIS” — “I wish, I>> want, I desire ALL of you to speak CONTINUALLY in tongues.”>> “I want” — Behind Paul’s words is the Holy Spirit. PAUL’S DESIRE IS GOD’S>> DESIRE TOO.>> “all of you” — every Xtian without exception, because 1 Cor is addressed to>> “ALL that in EVERY place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:2)>> “CONTINUALLY” — because LALEIN is a present infinitive, which, says Dr.>> Eric G. Jay in his “NT Greek” (p.101) “The present infinitive is used of an>> action which is prolonged or repeated … IT IS ONLY EMPLOYED WHEN>> ATTENTION IS BEING DRAWN TO THE PROLONGING OR REPETITION OF>> THE ACTION.”>> He cites “hUPAGW hALIEUEIN” — “I’m going back to the fishing trade” (as>> opposed to a nice afternoon’s one-off fishing) by Peter in John 21:3. And one>> sleepless night I discovered my old Bible College lecturer Prof E. M. Blaiklock>> made the same point in “The Bible and I” p.124 where he translates John the>> Baptist’s “He must increase, I must decrease” as “He must CONTINUALLY>> INCREASE, I must CONTINUALLY DECREASE.”But isn’t your friend then guilty of misquoting Dr. Eric Jay?The quote specifically mentions two of the subsets of the imperfective aspect:1. Prolonging (continuous)2. Iterative (repeated)In the case of 1 Cor 14:5, the intended aspect is clearly iterative, not continuous, and that agrees with Dr. Jay’s general statement.I mentioned the third one which I called general (I can see from Dave Smith that others call it customary, unless customary is intended to cover both general and iterative, like going back to fishing, not 24/7, but repeatedly. I don’t have a copy of Dana and Mantey.)The quote from Blaiklock indicates that we really need to look at both grammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Certain lexical items lend themselves naturally to be used with one aspect rather than another. Some words stand for a process like “increase”, and those are naturally used with an imperfective aspect, at least if the process is in focus. Whether the increase is in the form of a gradual slope or individual steps doesn’t really matter. If you study the usage of the word AUXANW (grow, increase), you will notice that it normally occurs in the imperfective aspect, either present or imperfect “tense”. When it is used in the aorist, the focus is on the growth event as a whole. One helpful way of looking at the perfective versus imperfective aspect is to note that with the perfective aspect the event is generally looked at from the outside as a whole unit. In the imperfective aspect, it is as if you are standing inside together with the actor. Your focus is on the continued, iterative or timeless/general aspect of the event rather than the completed event.To give a brief comment to Eddie, I am not saying that the aorist aspect is always best explained as a one-time event. I said that in the case of this particular verb in the aorist infinitive, that is a reasonable description. I suggest you take the time to look up the Greek data yourself.As the imperfective aspect can be described as normally employing one of the following:1. Continuous aspect2. Iterative aspect3. General aspect (used in general, timeless statements)so the perfective aspect can be differentiated into:1. Non-continuous2. Non-iterative3. SpecificThe first two of these (or maybe all three) have traditionally been called punctiliar in Greek grammar, and the imperfective durative, but I prefer to use words that are used more generally in modern descriptive linguistics.Iver Larsen

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Sun May 14 11:46:05 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect > To give a brief comment to Eddie, I am not saying> that the aorist aspect is always best explained as a> one-time event. I > said that in the case of this particular verb in the> aorist infinitive, that is a reasonable description.> I suggest you > take the time to look up the Greek data yourself.Not sure why you have assumed I have not done this.But why I objected to your first comment was becauseyou even gave another example (from Acts) to supportyour contention on the Aorist. My point is still thatthe Aorist has nothing to do with the number of timesan event takes place.In the real world, events can be ongoing. And aPresent tense or an Aorist tense can be used toreference these kinds of events. Neither one is to bepreferred. What determines which tense is selected ishow the author wants to portray that event for hisimmediate literary purpose. To describe a personrunning a mile would no more require a Present tenseas opposed to an Aorist tense. Once the author makes adecision on how he wants to portray that mile run, hewill pick the appropriate tense.I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.My point was your definition and example in theearlier post was misleading. We all agree on thedifferences between Imperfectives and Perfectives.That was not at all my point. Consider it one of mypet peeves when someone suggests an Aorist impliesone-time occurrence. That is patently false.Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Sun May 14 19:21:37 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Folks,Let me add one other piece of information that we all know, but have somehowoverlooked. Both infinitives and participles are substantives in grammar andnature, and being so, “both are indefinite in their bearing upon the limitsof action…” (Dana and Mantey, 222). The infinitive in I Corinthians 14:5cannot dictate the action. The only action that can even be consideredcontinuous, in the sense of on-going, would be the wishing, not thespeaking. I actually think the reason Paul is using so many presents in thiswhole section is that the condition, or problem, was on-going, as he wrote.We also need to be careful in Corinthians, realizing that Paul sometimesquotes his opponents and sometimes speaks tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, as onepost has already mentioned, the actually wish is that they would allprophesy, not all speak in tongues, and we know that the prophets were onlyto speak one at a time.Dave SmithHudson, NC—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver at larsen.dk>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 05:36Subject: Re: [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect> > Along the lines of Iver’s suggestion, Scott’s and my friend was in factgiven all> > the occurrences in the New Testament and the LXX of the presentinfinitive> > LALEIN to look up and see if they require or expect the translation “tospeak> > CONTINUALLY.” This apparently was not convincing.> >> > So, to be even more specific, this is what Scott’s and my friend wrote(on> > another forum) that caused us both to question him on his insistencethat> > LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 means to continually speak in tongues 24/7. I onlyquote> > it all to show that this “interpretation” is also being laid at the feetof Greek Profs> > Jay and Blaiklock:> >> >> 1 Cor 14:5 — “QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GKWSSAIS” — “I wish, I> >> want, I desire ALL of you to speak CONTINUALLY in tongues.”> >> “I want” — Behind Paul’s words is the Holy Spirit. PAUL’S DESIRE ISGOD’S> >> DESIRE TOO.> >> “all of you” — every Xtian without exception, because 1 Cor isaddressed to> >> “ALL that in EVERY place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”(1:2)> >> “CONTINUALLY” — because LALEIN is a present infinitive, which, saysDr.> >> Eric G. Jay in his “NT Greek” (p.101) “The present infinitive is usedof an> >> action which is prolonged or repeated … IT IS ONLY EMPLOYED WHEN> >> ATTENTION IS BEING DRAWN TO THE PROLONGING OR REPETITION OF> >> THE ACTION.”> >> He cites “hUPAGW hALIEUEIN” — “I’m going back to the fishing trade”(as> >> opposed to a nice afternoon’s one-off fishing) by Peter in John 21:3.And one> >> sleepless night I discovered my old Bible College lecturer Prof E. M.Blaiklock> >> made the same point in “The Bible and I” p.124 where he translates Johnthe> >> Baptist’s “He must increase, I must decrease” as “He must CONTINUALLY> >> INCREASE, I must CONTINUALLY DECREASE.”> > But isn’t your friend then guilty of misquoting Dr. Eric Jay?> The quote specifically mentions two of the subsets of the imperfectiveaspect:> 1. Prolonging (continuous)> 2. Iterative (repeated)> > In the case of 1 Cor 14:5, the intended aspect is clearly iterative, notcontinuous, and that agrees with Dr. Jay’s> general statement.> > I mentioned the third one which I called general (I can see from DaveSmith that others call it customary, unless> customary is intended to cover both general and iterative, like going backto fishing, not 24/7, but repeatedly. I don’t> have a copy of Dana and Mantey.)> > The quote from Blaiklock indicates that we really need to look at bothgrammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Certain> lexical items lend themselves naturally to be used with one aspect ratherthan another. Some words stand for a process> like “increase”, and those are naturally used with an imperfective aspect,at least if the process is in focus. Whether> the increase is in the form of a gradual slope or individual steps doesn’treally matter. If you study the usage of the> word AUXANW (grow, increase), you will notice that it normally occurs inthe imperfective aspect, either present or> imperfect “tense”. When it is used in the aorist, the focus is on thegrowth event as a whole. One helpful way of> looking at the perfective versus imperfective aspect is to note that withthe perfective aspect the event is generally> looked at from the outside as a whole unit. In the imperfective aspect, itis as if you are standing inside together> with the actor. Your focus is on the continued, iterative ortimeless/general aspect of the event rather than the> completed event.> > To give a brief comment to Eddie, I am not saying that the aorist aspectis always best explained as a one-time event. I> said that in the case of this particular verb in the aorist infinitive,that is a reasonable description. I suggest you> take the time to look up the Greek data yourself.> > As the imperfective aspect can be described as normally employing one ofthe following:> 1. Continuous aspect> 2. Iterative aspect> 3. General aspect (used in general, timeless statements)> > so the perfective aspect can be differentiated into:> > 1. Non-continuous> 2. Non-iterative> 3. Specific> > The first two of these (or maybe all three) have traditionally been calledpunctiliar in Greek grammar, and the> imperfective durative, but I prefer to use words that are used moregenerally in modern descriptive linguistics.> > Iver Larsen> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 14 20:27:39 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect On May 14, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) wrote:> Folks,> > Let me add one other piece of information that we all know, but > have somehow> overlooked. Both infinitives and participles are substantives in > grammar and> nature,Unquestionably an infinitive is a substantive, but I really don’t know what it’s supposed to mean when it is claimed that a participle is a substantive; a participle functions in part adjectivally and in part verbally.> and being so, “both are indefinite in their bearing upon the limits> of action…” (Dana and Mantey, 222). The infinitive in I > Corinthians 14:5> cannot dictate the action. The only action that can even be considered> continuous, in the sense of on-going, would be the wishing, not the> speaking. I actually think the reason Paul is using so many > presents in this> whole section is that the condition, or problem, was on-going, as > he wrote.> We also need to be careful in Corinthians, realizing that Paul > sometimes> quotes his opponents and sometimes speaks tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, > as one> post has already mentioned, the actually wish is that they would all> prophesy, not all speak in tongues, and we know that the prophets > were only> to speak one at a time.But, as has been noted previously in the thread, there are present infinitive forms LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5, 34, 35, and 39, and there is an aorist infinitive form LALHSAI in 1 Cor 14:19 — and I think there’s a difference, LALHSAI meaning something like “get spoken”– in terms of a completed action–, and LALEIN “speak” — in terms of an active process.> —– Original Message —–> From: “Iver Larsen” <iver at larsen.dk>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 05:36> Subject: Re: [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect> > >>> Along the lines of Iver’s suggestion, Scott’s and my friend was >>> in fact> given all>>> the occurrences in the New Testament and the LXX of the present> infinitive>>> LALEIN to look up and see if they require or expect the >>> translation “to> speak>>> CONTINUALLY.” This apparently was not convincing.>>> >>> So, to be even more specific, this is what Scott’s and my friend >>> wrote> (on>>> another forum) that caused us both to question him on his insistence> that>>> LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:5 means to continually speak in tongues 24/7. >>> I only> quote>>> it all to show that this “interpretation” is also being laid at >>> the feet> of Greek Profs>>> Jay and Blaiklock:>>> >>>> 1 Cor 14:5 — “QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GKWSSAIS” — “I wish, I>>>> want, I desire ALL of you to speak CONTINUALLY in tongues.”>>>> “I want” — Behind Paul’s words is the Holy Spirit. PAUL’S >>>> DESIRE IS> GOD’S>>>> DESIRE TOO.>>>> “all of you” — every Xtian without exception, because 1 Cor is> addressed to>>>> “ALL that in EVERY place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our >>>> Lord”> (1:2)>>>> “CONTINUALLY” — because LALEIN is a present infinitive, which, >>>> says> Dr.>>>> Eric G. Jay in his “NT Greek” (p.101) “The present infinitive is >>>> used> of an>>>> action which is prolonged or repeated … IT IS ONLY EMPLOYED WHEN>>>> ATTENTION IS BEING DRAWN TO THE PROLONGING OR REPETITION OF>>>> THE ACTION.”>>>> He cites “hUPAGW hALIEUEIN” — “I’m going back to the fishing >>>> trade”> (as>>>> opposed to a nice afternoon’s one-off fishing) by Peter in John >>>> 21:3.> And one>>>> sleepless night I discovered my old Bible College lecturer Prof >>>> E. M.> Blaiklock>>>> made the same point in “The Bible and I” p.124 where he >>>> translates John> the>>>> Baptist’s “He must increase, I must decrease” as “He must >>>> CONTINUALLY>>>> INCREASE, I must CONTINUALLY DECREASE.”>> >> But isn’t your friend then guilty of misquoting Dr. Eric Jay?>> The quote specifically mentions two of the subsets of the >> imperfective> aspect:>> 1. Prolonging (continuous)>> 2. Iterative (repeated)>> >> In the case of 1 Cor 14:5, the intended aspect is clearly >> iterative, not> continuous, and that agrees with Dr. Jay’s>> general statement.>> >> I mentioned the third one which I called general (I can see from Dave> Smith that others call it customary, unless>> customary is intended to cover both general and iterative, like >> going back> to fishing, not 24/7, but repeatedly. I don’t>> have a copy of Dana and Mantey.)>> >> The quote from Blaiklock indicates that we really need to look at >> both> grammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Certain>> lexical items lend themselves naturally to be used with one aspect >> rather> than another. Some words stand for a process>> like “increase”, and those are naturally used with an imperfective >> aspect,> at least if the process is in focus. Whether>> the increase is in the form of a gradual slope or individual steps >> doesn’t> really matter. If you study the usage of the>> word AUXANW (grow, increase), you will notice that it normally >> occurs in> the imperfective aspect, either present or>> imperfect “tense”. When it is used in the aorist, the focus is on the> growth event as a whole. One helpful way of>> looking at the perfective versus imperfective aspect is to note >> that with> the perfective aspect the event is generally>> looked at from the outside as a whole unit. In the imperfective >> aspect, it> is as if you are standing inside together>> with the actor. Your focus is on the continued, iterative or> timeless/general aspect of the event rather than the>> completed event.>> >> To give a brief comment to Eddie, I am not saying that the aorist >> aspect> is always best explained as a one-time event. I>> said that in the case of this particular verb in the aorist >> infinitive,> that is a reasonable description. I suggest you>> take the time to look up the Greek data yourself.>> >> As the imperfective aspect can be described as normally employing >> one of> the following:>> 1. Continuous aspect>> 2. Iterative aspect>> 3. General aspect (used in general, timeless statements)>> >> so the perfective aspect can be differentiated into:>> >> 1. Non-continuous>> 2. Non-iterative>> 3. Specific>> >> The first two of these (or maybe all three) have traditionally >> been called> punctiliar in Greek grammar, and the>> imperfective durative, but I prefer to use words that are used more> generally in modern descriptive linguistics.>> >> Iver Larsen>> >>>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

21 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 14:5

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Here we go Brian Roden Randal W Deese 1 cor 14:5 in original greek context. A bit more detail and complex than v2 but still pretty clear Read carefully and ask your questions on the text

    Donald Gee, the famed Pentecostal scholar, in his book Concerning spiritual gifts, rightly wrote: ‘It is distinctly affirmed that when these twin gifts of Tongues and Interpretation were exercised in proper order in the church, they equaled the gift of Prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5); and it is generally conceded that, since such is the case, they provide an equivalent method by which the Holy Spirit can cause His voice to be heard in the church.

    1. Here is the gift of interpretation explained

      1 Co 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
      1Co 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified

    2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      Your error here lies in the expectation that every hINA followed by a subjunctive indicates a purpose clause; but in fact that’s not the case;very frequently in Hellenistic Greek and later Greek a clause introduced by hINA and followed by a subjunctive is a substantive clause that is often equivalent to an infinitive–although it MAY indicate purpose or result.

    3. When people prophesy after hearing somebody speak in tongues… That is not the gift of interpretation… Since tongues is prayer praise or Thanksgiving, therefore, the interpretation must be in those categories. Now, what could be happening is that the tongue speaker prayed something to God and the person gave a prophecy in answer to the prayer

  2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    1 Corinthians 14:5There is the word “INA” (In order that) in there which does not comethrough to most English translations. The construction is usually that”Something is done.. in order that.. something else may/will happen”.Can this verse be translated from the greek as:”Now I wish all you to speak in tongues, but rather in order that youmay prophesy; and greater (is) the (one) prophesying than the (one)speaking in tongues, except unless he interprets, in order that thechurch may receive edification.”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>