Romans 1:16

Romans 1:16 Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com
Thu Apr 4 22:17:01 EST 2002

 

why miniscule? why miniscule? Hello all,I am trying to better understand Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject. Why is”EUANGELION” in the Accusative? Is “DUNAMIS” the subject? Is thesubject in “EPAISCHUNOMAI”? And lastly what is the antecedent of “ESTIN”? Thank you in advance.God bless,Glen Naftaniel

 

why miniscule?why miniscule?

Romans 1:16 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 4 22:22:20 EST 2002

 

why miniscule? Romans 1:16 GlenHere is my understanding. Sometimes I goof up hereand there, so hopefully someone will correct me ifI am incorrect.——->I am trying to better understand Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO>EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO>PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”———>I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject. Why is>“EUANGELION” in the Accusative?——(This is rather insignificant, but above you say “to betterunderstand.” That is a split infinitive. It’s best to avoid those.)Now, to your questions:The gospel is what Paul is not ashamed of. The subject is “I” whichyou see in the verb’s first person singular, OMAI.I am not ashamed of what? The gospel. Hence, the gospel isin the accusative.Is “DUNAMIS” the subject?No. See below.Is the>subject in “EPAISCHUNOMAI”?Yes, as stated above. (It’s the subject of 16a)And lastly what is the antecedent of>“ESTIN”? Thank you in advance.The gospel.I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it (the gospel)is the power (predicate nominative, agreeing with “it.”)Hope that helps.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

 

why miniscule?Romans 1:16

Romans 1:16 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Apr 4 22:29:27 EST 2002

 

Romans 1:16 why miniscule? on 4/4/02 7:17 PM, Glen L Naftaniel wrote:> I am trying to better understandROM. 1:16 OU GAR EPAISCUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN EISSWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNI.> > I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject. Why is> “EUANGELION” in the Accusative? Is “DUNAMIS” the subject? Is the> subject in “EPAISCHUNOMAI”? And lastly what is the antecedent of> “ESTIN”? Thank you in advance.> > God bless,> Glen NaftanielGlen,You will note that EPAISCUNOMAI is a first person singular, so how couldEUAGGELION be the subject? The subject is Paul. The second clause might beanalyzed ESTIN –> DUNAMIS QEOU, with the subject being the inflected 3rdpers sing inflection of ESTIN. The antecedent of ESTIN is EUAGGELION.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Romans 1:16why miniscule?

Romans 1:16 Jack Stewart jack_stewart_ at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 5 02:21:22 EST 2002

 

why miniscule? why miniscule? Hello -I think I understand most of what is going on in this verse except why it can’t be translated:For I am not ashamed of the gospel[.] For the power of God is “to the end of” salvation..etc.i.e. why isn’t DUNAMIS QEOU simply the subject of ESTIN thus making 16[b] independent of 16[a]? why is ESTIN necessarily connected to EUAGGELION?thanks,Jack Stewart>From: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>>Reply-To: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: [] Re: Romans 1:16>Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:29:27 -0800> >on 4/4/02 7:17 PM, Glen L Naftaniel wrote:> > > I am trying to better understand> >ROM. 1:16 OU GAR EPAISCUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN EIS>SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNI.> >> > I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject. Why is> > “EUANGELION” in the Accusative? Is “DUNAMIS” the subject? Is the> > subject in “EPAISCHUNOMAI”? And lastly what is the antecedent of> > “ESTIN”? Thank you in advance.> >> > God bless,> > Glen Naftaniel> >Glen,> >You will note that EPAISCUNOMAI is a first person singular, so how could>EUAGGELION be the subject? The subject is Paul. The second clause might be>analyzed ESTIN –> DUNAMIS QEOU, with the subject being the inflected 3rd>pers sing inflection of ESTIN. The antecedent of ESTIN is EUAGGELION.> >greetings,> >Clay> > > > > >>Clayton Stirling Bartholomew>Three Tree Point>P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [jack_stewart_ at hotmail.com]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > _________________________________________________________________MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

 

why miniscule?why miniscule?

Romans 1:16 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 5 19:02:33 EST 2002

 

rompheas volantes 2Esdr. 15:41 Col 3.8 >(This is rather insignificant, but above you say “to better>understand.” That is a split infinitive. It’s best to avoid those.)> Insignificant indeed. Could we perhaps be a bit less particular with eachother’s English grammar? After all, this is a Greek discussion list, not anEnglish discussion list. And besides that, the notion that the infinitiveshould not be “split” is a Romance language rule (it is in fact impossibleto split a Latin or Greek infinitive, since it consists of a single verbrather than the pariphrastic form of English) that English teachers trainedin the classics tried to impose on the English language. English is not aRomance language, but a Saxon language.glenn blankPensacola FL

 

rompheas volantes 2Esdr. 15:41Col 3.8

Romans 1:16 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Fri Apr 5 19:51:05 EST 2002

 

Col 3.8 Split Infinitives? On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 19:02, Glenn Blank wrote:> > > >(This is rather insignificant, but above you say “to better> >understand.” That is a split infinitive. It’s best to avoid those.)> >> Insignificant indeed. Could we perhaps be a bit less particular with each> other’s English grammar? A split infinitive is something up with which I choose to put not.With apologies to Winston Churchill.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

Col 3.8Split Infinitives?

Romans 1:16 Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com
Sat Apr 6 10:56:57 EST 2002

 

Finegan, Hidden Records 2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm? Dear Mark and all,Thank you for your response to my questions regarding Romans 1:16 (andfor correcting my English). I have learned more about English bystudying Greek than I did studying English in school. If I may ask twomore questions regarding Romans 1:16 I would appreciate it. Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”1. I asked– “What is the antecedent of ESTIN?” Mark said– “The gospel.” “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it (thegospel) is the power (predicate nominative, agreeing with “it.”)”Q’s– 1) How do we know that the power (DUNAMIS) is the predicatenominative and 2) that ESTIN refers back to EUAGGELION? Thank you in advance. God bless,Glen Naftaniel

 

Finegan, Hidden Records2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm?

Romans 1:16 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 6 16:05:03 EST 2002

 

2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm? Romans 1:16 Glen:——->Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU>ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI>hELLENI.”> >1. I asked– “What is the antecedent of ESTIN?”> >Mark said– “The gospel.” “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it (the>gospel) is the power (predicate nominative, agreeing with “it.”)”> >Q’s– 1) How do we know that the power (DUNAMIS) is the predicate>nominative and 2) that ESTIN refers back to EUAGGELION?——–I am only guessing here, but I think you are attempting to understandthis in the following manner:”I am not ashamed of the gospel. For God’s power is….”As you can see, this doesn’t work since there is no completepredicate. More specifically:For God’s power is ___________ resulting in salvation…And attempting to understand “is ________” as “is it (the gospel)…”will not work since that would require ESTIN to function as thepredicate nominative, which I would think has no such usagein the GNT.So, I think the only option is “I am not ashamed of the gospel,for it [TO EUANGELION] is God’s power…”BTW, I was really just having fun with the “split infinitive.”Sorry for getting some of us off track.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

 

2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm?Romans 1:16

Romans 1:16 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 6 18:30:34 EST 2002

 

Romans 1:16 Predicate Nominative Glen Naftaniel wrote,>> 1) How do we know that the power (DUNAMIS) is the predicate>>nominative and 2) that ESTIN refers back to EUAGGELION?Mark Wilson wrote,>I think you are attempting to understand>this in the following manner:> >“I am not ashamed of the gospel. For God’s power is….”> >As you can see, this doesn’t work since there is no complete>predicate. More specifically:> >For God’s power is ___________ resulting in salvation…Would it not be possible that the prepositional phrase itself is functioningas the predicate? Giving this sense:”For God’s power is unto salvation.”compare John 1.18; 1 Cor 14.22; Jam 5.3; Mat 19.5, for a few examples ofwhere the predicate following a form of EIMI is a prepositional phraserather than a substantive.Thus, Glen’s parsing would be{<DUNAMIS QEOU> (subject)} {ESTIN (copula)} {<EIS SWTHRIAN> (predicate)}versus Mark’s parsing, where the predicate is the noun phraseDUNAMIS QEOU EIS SWTHRIAN and the copula inserted into the noun phrase.So how do we know which it is?glenn blankPensacola FL

 

Romans 1:16Predicate Nominative

Romans 1:16 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Sat Apr 6 22:37:17 EST 2002

 

Predicate Nominative John 2:23 In a message dated 4/6/02 5:31:34 PM, glennblank at earthlink.net writes:>Glen Naftaniel wrote,> >>> 1) How do we know that the power (DUNAMIS) is the predicate>>>nominative and 2) that ESTIN refers back to EUAGGELION?> >Mark Wilson wrote,> >>I think you are attempting to understand>>this in the following manner:>> >>“I am not ashamed of the gospel. For God’s power is….”>> >>As you can see, this doesn’t work since there is no complete>>predicate. More specifically:>> >>For God’s power is ___________ resulting in salvation…> >Would it not be possible that the prepositional phrase itself is functioning>as the predicate? Giving this sense:> >“For God’s power is unto salvation.”> >compare John 1.18; 1 Cor 14.22; Jam 5.3; Mat 19.5, for a few examples of>where the predicate following a form of EIMI is a prepositional phrase>rather than a substantive.> >Thus, Glen’s parsing would be> >{<DUNAMIS QEOU> (subject)} {ESTIN (copula)} {<EIS SWTHRIAN> (predicate)}> >versus Mark’s parsing, where the predicate is the noun phrase> >DUNAMIS QEOU EIS SWTHRIAN > >and the copula inserted into the noun phrase.> >So how do we know which it is?> Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”First, ESTIN is a verb and does not have an antecendent. If we understand the subject as “it” then it can have an antecedent. As to the question of what the antecedent of “it” is, I would say TO EUAGGELION because even though it is accusative as it appears as the dir. obj. of EPAISCHUNOMAI, it can be the antecedent of the understood subject of ESTIN for pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender and number but their case is determined by their function within the clause. If DUNAMIS were the subject of ESTIN, I think it would likely have the article hH in front of it especially when followed by the genitive QEOU.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

 

Predicate NominativeJohn 2:23

Romans 1:16 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 8 00:20:49 EDT 2002

 

Lk 24:17-28 Col 3.8, KAI hUMEIS Carlton wrote this> Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION > DUNAMIS GAR THEOU > ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO > TE PROTON KAI > hELLENI.”> > First, ESTIN is a verb and does not have an> antecendent. If we understand the > subject as “it” then it can have an antecedent. This caught my attention primarily because of thewording.I know it is true in “English” that verbs to dohave antecedents. But I have noticed that Greekfinite verbs are completely different animals thanthe English variety.ESTIN is not “is” but “he/she/it is”. And, at leastin English, he/she/it is a pronoun and ALWAYS hasan antecedent, even if it is an implied one. My Greek teacher uses the expression that “a finite verb agrees with its subject/noun”.Technically speaking, Carlton, is your statement “ESTIN is a verb and does not have an antecendent” anEnglish statement or a Greek one? It seems to me thatevery Greek verb has a Person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) attachedto the ending, and therefore every Greek verb has anantecedent.Waldo SlusherCalgary, AL__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center – online filing with TurboTaxhttp://taxes.yahoo.com/

 

Lk 24:17-28Col 3.8, KAI hUMEIS

Romans 1:16 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Apr 8 22:03:06 EDT 2002

 

Greek plural of proper names NA27: 2 Cor 5.3? In a message dated 4/7/02 11:21:09 PM Central Daylight Time, waldoslusher at yahoo.com writes:> > First, ESTIN is a verb and does not have an> > antecendent. If we understand the > > subject as “it” then it can have an antecedent. > > > This caught my attention primarily because of the> wording.> > I know it is true in “English” that verbs to do> have antecedents. But I have noticed that Greek> finite verbs are completely different animals than> the English variety.> > ESTIN is not “is” but “he/she/it is”. And, at least> in English, he/she/it is a pronoun and ALWAYS has> an antecedent, even if it is an implied one.> > My Greek teacher uses the expression that “a finite > verb agrees with its subject/noun”.> > Technically speaking, Carlton, is your statement > “ESTIN is a verb and does not have an antecendent” an> English statement or a Greek one? It seems to me that> every Greek verb has a Person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) attached> to the ending, and therefore every Greek verb has an> antecedent.> Its news to me that verbs in Greek or English have antecedents. Pronouns have antecedents, but no one told me in these 52 years or high school or above education that verbs have antecedents in Latin, Hebrew, German, or Greek. If the subject of a verb is a pronoun it has an antecedent understood or expressed. Is this something the linquists have changed while I slept with my Funk three volume grammar? Clay, is this your doing?Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

 

Greek plural of proper namesNA27: 2 Cor 5.3?

Romans 1:16 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Apr 8 23:15:10 EDT 2002

 

NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”) 2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm? on 4/8/02 7:03 PM, Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:> Its news to me that verbs in Greek or English have antecedents. Pronouns have> antecedents, but no one told me in these 52 years or high school or above> education that verbs have antecedents in Latin, Hebrew, German, or Greek. If> the subject of a verb is a pronoun it has an antecedent understood or> expressed. Is this something the linquists have changed while I slept with my> Funk three volume grammar? Clay, is this your doing?> > Carlton Winbery> Louisiana CollegeCarlton,You never know what linguists might be doing behind your back. They are nottrustworthy. Have you ever read any of Chomsky’s other stuff(non-linguistic)? Anyway, that is off topic.I don’t remember saying that verbs have antecedents. But when someone asksWhat is the antecedent of ESTIN in Rom. 1:16? I have no troubleunderstanding the question. They want to know what the anaphoric pronominalsuffix of the verb points to in the previous context. If you don’t want tocall this an antecedent that is OK by me. I didn’t suggest this use of theterm. Just answered the question.Some of us with defective formal educational backgrounds (i.e., no formaltraining in Greek or Latin) tend to play fast and loose with theterminology. This drives the veteran professors up the wall but we can’thelp it. We don’t know any better.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062text for the week:ZECH. 9:5 KAI APOLEITAI BASILEUS EK GAZHS

 

NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”)2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm?

Romans 1:16 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 9 09:48:17 EDT 2002

 

NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”) Lk 24:17-28 Waldo:——–>Its news to me that verbs in Greek or English have antecedents. Pronouns >have>antecedents….——–We might be complicating this a bit. All Greek finite verbslook like this: (verb + PERSON).The “verb half” of a Greek verb AGREES with its noun; the”person half” AGREES with the same noun. I really don’tknow if “person” has an ANTECEDENT in Greek.I think you might be viewing the Greek finite verb somethinglike this: (verb + PRONOUN). That may be your problem. ChangePRONOUN TO PERSON and then begin your research.My thoughtsMark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

 

NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”)Lk 24:17-28

[] Romans 1:16-17 David Bielby dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Mon Apr 7 15:59:43 EDT 2003

 

[] EN MESWi in Revelation [] EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION Am I missing something here? Are these possibilities? Clipping from Romans 1:16-17 “OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION [TOUXRISTOU], DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN….DIKAIOSUNH GAR QEOU EN AUTW….” Assuming the majority text version here, what are the reasons why Christ isnot the subject in the phrases that follow…either in “DUNAMIS GAR QEOUESTIN” (For He is the power of God….instead of…it is the power of God) And also: “DIKAIOSUNH GAR QEOU EN AUTW” For in Him a righteousness hasbeen revealed…. vs For in it a righteousness has been revealed…. Thank you! David Bielbydbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.orgwww.bloomingtonvineyard.org

 

[] EN MESWi in Revelation[] EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

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>