[] RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8 Jun Cagas juncagas2002 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 19 09:01:12 EDT 2004
[] The expositors Greek testament [] Caution: RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8 On Oct 17, 2004, at 1:18 PM, richard pardo wrote:> The question has to do with certain comments about,and the > translation of 1 Cor. 13:8, by Rev. William J.Morford, who also > translated the N.T., samples of which may be foundat > http://www.thepowernewtestament.com/. I suppose(without discussing > theology of course) my question is, “What do youthink about it?” A > copy of the text in question follows.> > Regarding 1 Corinthians 13:8:> > “And whether prophecies will be abolished; ortongues will cease, or > knowledge will be abolished: love never perishes.” ICorinthians 13:8. > The Power New TestamentIn response, Steven Lo Vullo points out Mr. Morford’s “little clause order trick in his English translation here in order to substantiate his novelproposal.”Richard, you wanted to discuss the matter “withoutdiscussing theology of course.” However, it seems thatyour posting betrays a concern for the passage’simpact on the theology of the current work of theSpirit. In that case, I suggest that the next questionis more important: what is the time-frame for theabolition/cessation of prophecies, tongues, andknowledge? Is Paul telling us here when that willhappen (or has happened)?==============Jun CagasImmanuel Bible CollegeCebu City, Philippines__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] The expositors Greek testament[] Caution: RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8
[] Caution: RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 19 10:32:58 EDT 2004
[] RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8 [] Key to Young While it is appropriate to discuss the text of 1 Cor 13:8 and what theGreek text may or may not imply as a Greek text, I think that list-membersshould be aware that this is NOT an appropriate forum for theologicalissues as such.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8[] Key to Young
[] RE: 1 Corinthians 13:8 Jun Cagas juncagas2002 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 20 10:51:19 EDT 2004
[] Question on Gal 2:17 – AUTOI [] Questions on Gal 2:17 – AUTOI on 10/19/04 10:32, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> at cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote: > While it is appropriate to discuss the text of 1 Cor 13:8 and what the Greek text may > or may not imply as a Greek text, I think that list-members should be aware that this > is NOT an appropriate forum for theological issues as such. Thanks for the admonition. I did not intend to start a discussion on theological or hermeneutical issues. I just wanted to respond to Richard. But since I was reading it through the Digest my response was naturally carried over into the list. I should have taken Richard’s email address instead, and responded to him through it. I apologize for that slip. ==============Jun CagasImmanuel Bible CollegeCebu City, Philippines__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] Question on Gal 2:17 – AUTOI[] Questions on Gal 2:17 – AUTOI
1 Cor 13:8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Feb 16 19:50:55 EST 1999
transgressions transgressions This afternoon’s thread focusing primarily upon 1 Cor 13:8 came surroundedby an agenda that, as it turns out, was not Dan Oglesby’s own agenda butsomeone else’s from another list. It is the agenda, the discussion ofdoctrine as such, that was objectionable rather than the specific questionabout this text. Jonathan Robie’s more measured response rightly cut outthe agenda for discussion while leaving the focused question on the Greektext of 1 Cor 13:8 and 1 Cor 12:31 open to discussion; unfortunately, I wassending my own reaction to the agenda at the very same time as he wassending his post, and had I seen his first, I certainly would not have sentmine. If I may, I’d like to rephrase Dan’s questions so that they focusdirectly upon the Greek text rather than upon an agenda-driven question ofwho’s right on a particular issue. I really think that if we can agree onthe legitimate possibilities of the Greek text, we can leave people to drawtheir own implications from them.1 Cor 13:8. hH AGAPH OUPOTE PIPTEI; EITE DE PROFHTEIAI, KATARGHQHSONTAI,EITE GLWSSAI, PAUSONTAI; EITE GNWSIS, KATARGHQHSETAI.What’s the difference between these verbs, PIPTW, KATARGEW, andPAUW/PAUOMAI in terms of the kind of failure/stopping/being stopped thatthey describe? And what difference does it make that PIPTEI is presenttense, while PAUSONTAI and KATARGHQHSONTAI/KATARGHQHSETAI are future tense?1 Cor 12:31. ZHLOUTE DE TA CARISMATA TA MEIZONA. Here the form ZHLOUTEcould be either indicate or imperative 2 pl. What difference, within theimmediate context, does it make whether one decides for one possibilityover the other–or, to put it another way, does the context itself offerreasons for thinking that the imperative or the indicative is more likelyintended by the writer, Paul?I think that if the questions are posed this way, they allow the Greek textto speak for itself. I also think that the archives do, in fact, havediscussion focusing on precisely these verses, even if they don’t mentiondoctrines.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
transgressionstransgressions
1 Cor 13:8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Feb 16 19:50:55 EST 1999
transgressions transgressions This afternoon’s thread focusing primarily upon 1 Cor 13:8 came surroundedby an agenda that, as it turns out, was not Dan Oglesby’s own agenda butsomeone else’s from another list. It is the agenda, the discussion ofdoctrine as such, that was objectionable rather than the specific questionabout this text. Jonathan Robie’s more measured response rightly cut outthe agenda for discussion while leaving the focused question on the Greektext of 1 Cor 13:8 and 1 Cor 12:31 open to discussion; unfortunately, I wassending my own reaction to the agenda at the very same time as he wassending his post, and had I seen his first, I certainly would not have sentmine. If I may, I’d like to rephrase Dan’s questions so that they focusdirectly upon the Greek text rather than upon an agenda-driven question ofwho’s right on a particular issue. I really think that if we can agree onthe legitimate possibilities of the Greek text, we can leave people to drawtheir own implications from them.1 Cor 13:8. hH AGAPH OUPOTE PIPTEI; EITE DE PROFHTEIAI, KATARGHQHSONTAI,EITE GLWSSAI, PAUSONTAI; EITE GNWSIS, KATARGHQHSETAI.What’s the difference between these verbs, PIPTW, KATARGEW, andPAUW/PAUOMAI in terms of the kind of failure/stopping/being stopped thatthey describe? And what difference does it make that PIPTEI is presenttense, while PAUSONTAI and KATARGHQHSONTAI/KATARGHQHSETAI are future tense?1 Cor 12:31. ZHLOUTE DE TA CARISMATA TA MEIZONA. Here the form ZHLOUTEcould be either indicate or imperative 2 pl. What difference, within theimmediate context, does it make whether one decides for one possibilityover the other–or, to put it another way, does the context itself offerreasons for thinking that the imperative or the indicative is more likelyintended by the writer, Paul?I think that if the questions are posed this way, they allow the Greek textto speak for itself. I also think that the archives do, in fact, havediscussion focusing on precisely these verses, even if they don’t mentiondoctrines.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Are we just suppose to pick someone, that we had a rather answer their question. Or write a theme on their subject.