On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed Dec 15 13:22:49 EST 1999
On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 GENOITO! On Wed 15 Dec 1999 (11:54:14), crhutson at salisbury.net wrote:> I think that “stigma” is not a typo. This is the number 6, isn’t it?> “Sigma” would be 200. Dear CRIS Correct. Antichrist is “stigmatised” as 666. Stigma is the same as Digamma or W (written as F). Greek uses a decimal system; but has no symbol for zero (0). So they need nine letters for the units; nine more for the tens; nine more for the hundreds. This makes 27: but there are only 24 letters in the Greek alphabet, so three obsolete letters are pressed into service: TABLE OF NUMERICAL VALUES OF GREEK LETTERS 1 alpha 10 iota 100 rho 2 beta 20 kappa 200 sigma 3 gamma 30 lambda 300 tau 4 delta 40 mu 400 upsilon 5 epsilon 50 nu 500 phi 6 [digamma/stigma] 60 xi 600 chi 7 zeta 70 omicron 700 psi 8 eta 80 pi 800 omega 9 theta 90 [qoppa] 900 [sampi] Some prophets of doom want to characterise the “World Wide Web” as 666 “www”; but that is not how it works! From the table above, you can see that 666 is chi xi digamma (stigma), not www. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499GENOITO!
On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed Dec 15 13:22:49 EST 1999
On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 GENOITO! On Wed 15 Dec 1999 (11:54:14), crhutson at salisbury.net wrote:> I think that “stigma” is not a typo. This is the number 6, isn’t it?> “Sigma” would be 200. Dear CRIS Correct. Antichrist is “stigmatised” as 666. Stigma is the same as Digamma or W (written as F). Greek uses a decimal system; but has no symbol for zero (0). So they need nine letters for the units; nine more for the tens; nine more for the hundreds. This makes 27: but there are only 24 letters in the Greek alphabet, so three obsolete letters are pressed into service: TABLE OF NUMERICAL VALUES OF GREEK LETTERS 1 alpha 10 iota 100 rho 2 beta 20 kappa 200 sigma 3 gamma 30 lambda 300 tau 4 delta 40 mu 400 upsilon 5 epsilon 50 nu 500 phi 6 [digamma/stigma] 60 xi 600 chi 7 zeta 70 omicron 700 psi 8 eta 80 pi 800 omega 9 theta 90 [qoppa] 900 [sampi] Some prophets of doom want to characterise the “World Wide Web” as 666 “www”; but that is not how it works! From the table above, you can see that 666 is chi xi digamma (stigma), not www. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499GENOITO!
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 justin rogers justinrogers35 at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 28 10:40:04 EDT 2006
[] List Etiquette [] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 Hello: Could someone please comment on nouns with the -IKOS suffix? N.T. Wright said in a lecture at Crighton College in 2003 that -IKOS nouns refer to animation, and not substance. Thus “fleshly” and “spiritual” are not good translations of YUMATIKOS and PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Cor 15:44. Rather we should say “flesh-animated” and “spirit-animated.” I cannot find any help from my grammars. Thank you.Justin RogersMayfield, KY
[] List Etiquette[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 28 10:50:56 EDT 2006
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 [] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:40 AM, justin rogers wrote:> Hello:> Could someone please comment on nouns with the -IKOS suffix? > N.T.> Wright said in a lecture at Crighton College in 2003 that -IKOS > nouns refer> to animation, and not substance. Thus “fleshly” and “spiritual” are > not good> translations of YUMATIKOS and PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Cor 15:44. Rather we > should> say “flesh-animated” and “spirit-animated.” I cannot find any help > from my> grammars. Thank you.If your question is really about the -IKOS suffix, it was answered by Scott Socking when you first raised this question two days ago: the adjectival suffix -IKOS means simply “relating to,” “having to do with”; it has nothing to do with “animation.” Assuming that you mean YUCIKOS rather than the non-existent YUMATIKOS, Wright’s comment more likely relates to the root elements YUC- and PNEUMAT-. YUCIKOS evidently is derived from the LXX translation of Genesis 1:7 where YUCH is the Greek used to convey the Hebrew NeFeSH, the word for organic creaturely existence in an earthly body enlivened by the breath of God. The standard view, which I think is correct, is that YUCIKOS refers to ordinary creaturely organic life.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/
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Fri Apr 28 11:11:07 EDT 2006
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44 [] EDIWXA – 1 Corinthians 15:9 justin rogers wrote:> Hello:> Could someone please comment on nouns with the -IKOS suffix? N.T.> Wright said in a lecture at Crighton College in 2003 that -IKOS nouns refer> to animation, and not substance. Thus “fleshly” and “spiritual” are not good> translations of YUMATIKOS and PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Cor 15:44. Rather we should> say “flesh-animated” and “spirit-animated.” I cannot find any help from my> grammars. Thank you.Have you checked out the resources that Wright lists in the footnotes to hisdiscussion of this passage in his _Resurrection of the Son of God_?Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net
[] -IKOS nouns in 1 Cor 15:44[] EDIWXA – 1 Corinthians 15:9
Link Hudson Furthermore, your interpretation of the resurrection events as described by Paul in 1 Cor 15 cannot be further from the Pentecostal interpretation. After reading quite many of them they do not even appear to be baptist but more of a reformed view that lacks any Charismata whatsoever. I say Charismata because by the time Paul arrives at the subject of eschatology with the Corinthian church, he had already written about
communion in the eschatological charismata in ch 11,
the charisma gifts in ch 12,
charisma love and eternity in ch 13,
charisma communication and gifts of speaking specifically in ch 14
So to interpret His return for the Church in 1 Cor 15 without the gifts is not even baptists anymore but some sort of deeply weird reformed and fundamentally wrong eschatological interpretation…
Troy Day maybe you are confusing me with so.eone else. I have pointed out in my posts and videos that Paul does not want the church and believers to come behind in any spiritual gift waiting for the revelation/coming of Jesus Christ. I also notice He said that and not seven years befor His coming. I believe the giffts are available (at least) untill Jesus comes back. If you think I said otherwise you have got the wrong guy.
We also seem to have a different idea of what Pentecostal theology should beml. I believe if Pentecostal theology does not line up with scripture it should change. You seem to evaluate doctrines based on whether Pentecostals have held to them in the past.
No I am not confusing you 🙂 I read your comments every time when you post them for the 5 years I believe to have a pretty good grip on bapticostalism by now
Troy Day i have not heard of “Reformed” premil post-tribbers.
really? a classic Case for Historic Premillennialism
Troy Day “Shaka when the walls fell.”
Is what you posted the name of a book?
Link Hudson I honestly dont have a clue what you are talking about anymore but I see that from all the topics I posted on 1 Cot 14 you promptly ignored namely the ones prophecy and tongues related you. If you are not going to answer the questions what is the point of the OP anymore?
You could try a comprehensible OP with a clear focus, not multiple linis.
“Shaka when the walls fell” is a reference to a Star Trek TNG episode regarding a race who spoke in incomprehinsible metaphors. Type in the quote in YouTube.
Star Trek is of the devil of course!
Let’s stick to the Bible here will ya?
A comprehensive OP would be a big no no when we are talking about serious context like 1 Cor 14 You cant look at the Greek text in such baptist way out of context
In general, Troy Day, if you post a link to two long threads about Greek and want me to search through the web pages on the off chance that there is something in there that I can relate to whatever topic you will discuss, odds are I won’t read the threads. I have searched through threads before and not even found anything related to the point you want to make. You could quote some related text if there is something specific you want to discuss.
Link Hudson I dont know how else to respond to your questions except through the Bible and the Bible in its original tongue? If you dont care about what the Bible says what are you discussing here?
But you aren’t responding to me. You are trying to get me to guess what you want me to respond to you about. You could write a focused paragraph about what you are getting at if you want to post all these links to long threads intermixed with stuff like ‘online image’, and links to long threads. How am I supposed to figure out what exactly you want to even discuss?
I usually just ignore posts like this. Why don’t you write a paragraph with a specific question if you want people to respond?
I am responding to the best way I know how to and Yes I am responding to you in the best way I know how to – with the Bible! If you are not going to agree the Bible is our best answer in this discussion I really have nothing else to go on but the BIBLE
I love this PROPHETIC BIBLE STUDY 1Cor 15 Isara Mo RichardAnna Boyce