: The Biblical Greek Forum
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: Phil 1:9 – το
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 06:18 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Z2-7PemuzdE/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
rhutchin wrote: What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above – linked to χριστου in each case?
Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?
I am not sure if Carl took it the same way but this is how I read it: [Phlp 1:29] because to you has been granted that which is for Christ, not only to entrust [yourself] to him but also to suffer for him.
In other words “το υπερ χριστου” is the subject of “εχαρισθη”, which is why we need the “το”. Then “ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν αλλα και το υπερ αυτου πασχειν” is a further elaboration of “το υπερ χριστου”, which is put in apposition. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — September 20th, 2012, 9:18 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 05:50 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/4QzJWzRn7es/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Stephen Carlson wrote: Hi David. This thread is about bare datives, not objects of the preposition ἐν. Even in the cases you cited, I believe there’s a plausible case for a common locative/sphere of influence interpretation of ἐν + dative rather than an unusual instrumental with an animate noun, but let’s not go off topic here.
Yes sure!
Joe Rutherford wrote: […] As the vision continues, John does see 7 angels. Therefore, in view of the normal translation, I consider there has to be a direct connection. […]
Perhaps I want to point out that we cannot assume that whenever a writer mentions seven messengers, it refers to the same messengers. This is because in Rev 2-3, he clearly specified who was the messenger whom he was talking about, by saying something like “τω αγγελω της εν εφεσω εκκλησιας”, where “της εν εφεσω εκκλησιας” is restrictive. Each reference to “seven messengers” may or may not be to the same group. For example, “τους επτα αγγελους οι ενωπιον του θεου εστηκασιν” in Rev 8 and afterward does not necessarily refer to those in Rev 2-3, as “οι ενωπιον του θεου εστηκασιν” is again restrictive. However, the seven messengers in Rev 2-3 were actually mentioned earlier in Rev 1:20 as “οι επτα αστερες αγγελοι των επτα εκκλησιων εισιν”. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — September 20th, 2012, 8:50 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: Phil 1:29 – τὸ
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 11:01 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/o2CzuLxIxKA/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
rhutchin wrote: Phil 1:9
ὸτι ὺμιν έχαρισθη το ὺπερ χριστου ού μονον το είς αύτον πιστευειν άλλα και το ὺπερ αύτον ασχειν
What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above – linked to χριστου in each case?
Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?
Roger Hutchinson
It would help to have the text correctly identified and correctly cited: Phil 1:29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν
I’d call this a case of anacoluthon; I think that Paul started out to say “ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν” — but that he decided to insert another notion that “suffering for Christ” must have as its necessary foundation. Of course it’s possible to English the content by omitting the anacoluthon, “You’ve been privileged, not only to believe in Christ, but to suffer for Him as well.” I think that the initial formulation of the subject of ἐχαρίσθη was intended to be τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν, but that Paul switched horses in mid-stream and decided to expand upon his initially intended formulation. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 20th, 2012, 2:01 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Phil 1:9 – το
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 10:16 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Z6ETrAPTF1w/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Phil 1:9
ὸτι ὺμιν έχαρισθη το ὺπερ χριστου ού μονον το είς αύτον πιστευειν άλλα και το ὺπερ αύτον ασχειν
What is the purpose for το in the three instances in which it is used above – linked to χριστου in each case?
Would it make a difference if το had been omitted?
Roger Hutchinson Statistics: Posted by rhutchin — September 20th, 2012, 1:16 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 06:29 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Wn1OBgKUYos/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Hello again everyone. I’ve had a change of mind about this issue and have seen the wisdom of accepting the normal translation of Rev 2:1(a). One reason for this is that there is a connection between that text contained in chapters 2 and 3, and other text in Revelation. As the vision continues, John does see 7 angels. Therefore, in view of the normal translation, I consider there has to be a direct connection. I’ll not strain the rules for this forum by discussing all these issues. If anyone would like to get into that, please PM. Statistics: Posted by Joe Rutherford — September 20th, 2012, 9:29 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 20 Sep 2012 12:17 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/sH74u8CneCE/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Hi David. This thread is about bare datives, not objects of the preposition ἐν. Even in the cases you cited, I believe there’s a plausible case for a common locative/sphere of influence interpretation of ἐν + dative rather than an unusual instrumental with an animate noun, but let’s not go off topic here. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 20th, 2012, 3:17 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Other Re: Words for nature, automatic, natural and existence?
Posted: 19 Sep 2012 11:30 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/eUhnVJt-hP8/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
There is a conceptual problem that should be changed before going further. “Biblical Greek” is not a language any more than “Good News New Testament” is a language. Both are snapshots of a language and they only make sense within their larger community language.
In other words, in order to understand Paul, one needs to know what he said and to read it against what he could have said, linguistically, syntactically, and lexically speaking. On being, nature, and automaticity, you may enjoy reading some of Epictetus from the first century who frequently relates to these questions. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — September 20th, 2012, 2:30 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Other Re: Words for nature, automatic, natural and existence?
Posted: 19 Sep 2012 06:56 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Xu2oaaOZ4EY/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Thanks, David. For some reason it didn’t occur to me that I could google for an online distionary that translated English into Attic (Biblical) Greek, and that such a dictionary would provide the English senses for the various Greek words and phrases it listed. Statistics: Posted by Chris Eilers — September 19th, 2012, 9:56 pm