Mark 11:22

[] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivated translation, at times”) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com Mon Jun 29 06:51:17 EDT 2009   [] Theologically motivated translation, at times [] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Rod Rogers…

2 Peter 2:2

2 Peter 2 2 Relative Pronoun   Which Antecedent

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Timothy Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au Wed May 26 08:24:08 EDT 1999   ICHQUS 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? After a long time without a computer, I return to !2 Peter 2:2 reads:KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or…

1 Peter 3:7

ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI In 1 Peter 3 7 Revised

1 Peter 3:7 John Barach jbarach at telusplanet.net Wed Sep 8 19:49:10 EDT 1999   1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format Fellow ers:Could any of you help me understand the syntax of 1 Peter 3:7? Thepassage reads:hOI ANDRES hOMOIWS SUNOIKOUNTES KATA GNWSIN hWS ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI TWiGUNAIKEIWi APONEMONTES TIMHN hWS…

John 1:1

New Testament • John 1:1 (In THE beginning)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος

This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.

Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:

“In origin was the Word”

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outl … ologue.htm

ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”

The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
has none.

Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
I’m confused.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Danny Diskin

Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm


1 Peter 4:3

New Testament • Re: 1 Peter 4:3 πεπορευμένους
Paul-Nitz wrote:
Thanks. That’s simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way.
Why would we expect a Dative Ptc?
(I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don’t seem to fit here.)

Because ἀρκετός normally takes the dative + infinitive, so a participle modifying ὐμῖν or ἡμῖν would also normally be in the dative, πεπορευομένοις. That’s what motivates people to try to explain the accusative…

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 3rd, 2014, 6:49 am