2 Peter 3:10

New Testament • Re: 2 Peter 3:10  (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται
Jonathan Robie wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm

Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.

Are you copting out?

Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm

Philippians 1:10

Philippians 1.10

Philippians 1.10 D. Anthony Storm dstorm at 2xtreme.net Fri May 21 00:50:52 EDT 1999   PLEIW in Matt 26:53 Keeping up with NT Greek after class I apologize if this has been discussed, but I cannot get the archive searchto provide me with meaningful responses.In Phil. 1.10 we read:EIS TO DOKIMAZEIN hUMAS TA DIAFERONTAGenerally this…

Philippians 1:3

New Testament • Re: Philippians 1.3-5
Pat Ferguson wrote:
Here’s what another source relates:

Old English hors, from Proto-Germanic *hursa- …, of unknown origin, connected by some with PIE root *kurs-, source of Latin currere “to run”.
The usual Indo-European word is represented by Old English eoh, from PIE *ekwo- “horse” (see equine). In many other languages, as in English, this root has been lost in favor of synonyms, probably via superstitious taboo on uttering the name of an animal so important in Indo-European religion. (Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary 2013)

:? That quote just says that the Germanic etymon of English horse is of obscure origin; it doesn’t say anything about ἵππος. And if you click on the word equine from where you quoted it, it says that ἵππος comes from the PIE *ekwo-.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 11th, 2014, 5:44 pm