[] Acts 16:34 newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au
Thu Jul 1 19:06:55 EDT 2004
[] Re: Funk’s Grammar [] Acts 16:34 KAI HGALLIASATO PANOIKI PEPISTEUKWS TW QEWIn KJV it renders this ‘and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.’In this sense, it puts PANOIKI with PEPISTEUKWS. Is it possible to translateit ‘and rejoiced with all his house, believing in God’, instead puttingPANOIKI with HGALLIASATO? Ie does it necessarily mean that all his housebelieved?Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia
[] Re: Funk’s Grammar[] Acts 16:34
[] Acts 16:34 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Jul 1 20:24:26 EDT 2004
[] Acts 16:34 [] Acts 16:34 Dear Craig,>KAI HGALLIASATO PANOIKI PEPISTEUKWS TW QEW> >In KJV it renders this ‘and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.’> >In this sense, it puts PANOIKI with PEPISTEUKWS. Is it possible to translate>it ‘and rejoiced with all his house, believing in God’, instead putting>PANOIKI with HGALLIASATO? Ie does it necessarily mean that all his house>believed?HH: The previous verse tells you that his household believed, because they would not otherwise have been baptized.Here is what A. T. Robertson said:http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/With all his house (panoikei). Adverb, once in Plato, though usually panoikiai. In LXX, but here alone in the N.T. It is in an amphibolous position and can be taken either with “rejoiced” (hgalliasato) or “having believed” (pepisteukwß, perfect active participle, permanent belief), coming between them. The whole household (family, warden, slaves) heard the word of God, believed in the Lord Jesus, made confession, were baptized, and rejoiced.HH: Parsons and Culy in their commentary on Acts put PANOIKEI with “believed.” So does the recent HCSB translation. It seems to make a little more sense to me that way.Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Acts 16:34[] Acts 16:34
[] Acts 16:34 craig newsgroupstuff at swiftdsl.com.au
Fri Jul 2 02:19:06 EDT 2004
[] Acts 16:34 [] Philo vocabulary question > Dear Craig,> > >KAI HGALLIASATO PANOIKI PEPISTEUKWS TW QEW> >> >In KJV it renders this ‘and rejoiced, believing in God with all his > >house.’> >> >In this sense, it puts PANOIKI with PEPISTEUKWS. Is it possible to > >translate it ‘and rejoiced with all his house, believing in God’, > >instead putting PANOIKI with HGALLIASATO? Ie does it > necessarily mean > >that all his house believed?> > HH: The previous verse tells you that his > household believed, because they would not > otherwise have been baptized.Yes, well I guess that conclusion has to do with a prior theologicalcommitment :-)(eg I suppose a paedo-baptist could say it makes sense to go withHGALLIASATO, in that the whole household rejoiced, and that all werebaptised on the basis of the belief of the head of the household, notnecessarily their own personal belief.)But I guess your quotation from Robertson indicates that it can go eitherway.Actually, just looked at my Bruce commentary (guess I should have before!),and he says:”Here the adverb may be taken grammatically with either HGALLIASATO orPEPISTEUKWS; in sense it probably goes with both.”Thanks!Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia > Here is what A. T. Robertson said: > http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar> ies/> > With all his house > (panoikei). Adverb, once in > Plato, > though usually panoikiai. In LXX, but here > alone in the N.T. It is in an amphibolous > position and can be taken either with “rejoiced” > (hgalliasato) or “having believed” (pepisteukwß, > perfect active participle, permanent belief), > coming between them. The whole household (family, > warden, slaves) heard the word of God, believed > in the Lord Jesus, made confession, were > baptized, and rejoiced.> > HH: Parsons and Culy in their commentary on Acts > put PANOIKEI with “believed.” So does the recent > HCSB translation. It seems to make a little more > sense to me that way.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard
[] Acts 16:34[] Philo vocabulary question
[] Acts 16:34 Oun Kwon kwono at upstate.edu
Sun Jul 4 21:46:04 EDT 2004
[] Vocative of QEOS [] Hebrews 1:8 thanks A small thought (possibly with one stone two birds caught):If the last phrase is rendered more literally way as:” … and rejoiced, with-all-his-household having-believed in God.”This seems to have accomplished it both way, “PANOIKEI” first connected toPEPISTEUKWS, and then the whole thing is connected to HGALLIASATO. >> HH: Parsons and Culy in their commentary on Acts >> put PANOIKEI with “believed.” So does the recent >> HCSB translation. It seems to make a little more >> sense to me that way. Oun J Kwon, M.D.SUNY Uptate Med UniversitySyracuse, NY
[] Vocative of QEOS[] Hebrews 1:8 thanks
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. Remington186 at aol.com Remington186 at aol.com
Sun Dec 12 20:06:14 EST 2004
[] shalom [] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. Dear Steven,This may not be so much of an imposition since I’m addressing your addiction to sentence diagramming:HGALLIASATO PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWiI’m thinking that PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi is an adverbal clause, with a “subject,” household, a “verbal,” having committed, and the direct object, God. That “He,” the subject of the sentence, is a part of “the household” is, unquestionable. As a verbal clause would it inevitably modify rejoiced — or is there something in Greek that has it simply modifying HGALLIASATO, including both ‘he’ and ‘rejoiced,’ both subject and predicate?Seventh grade was decades ago…Warmest regards,Remington MandelHemet CA USA
[] shalom[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming.
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Mon Dec 13 08:00:41 EST 2004
[] BDAG, Louw and Nida, or TDNT? [] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:43:56 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo<themelios at charter.net> writes:> On Dec 12, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Remington186 at aol.com wrote:> > > HGALLIASATO PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi> > I’m thinking that PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi is an adverbal > clause, > > with a> > “subject,” household, a “verbal,” having committed, and the direct > > > object,> > God. That “He,” the subject of the sentence, is a part of “the > > household” is,> > unquestionable.> >> > As a verbal clause would it inevitably modify rejoiced — or is > there> > something in Greek that has it simply modifying HGALLIASATO, > including > > both ‘he’ and> > ‘rejoiced,’ both subject and predicate?> > Hi Remington:> > Yes, the participial phrase PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi is adverbial, > subordinate to and modifying HGALLIASATO, probably semantically > indicating the cause of the rejoicing. And TWi QEWi does indeed > complement PEPISTEUKWS.> > Participles, since they are not finite, do not have subjects. > PANOIKEI > is an adverb. The question here is whether PANOIKEI modifies the > main > verb HGALLIASATO or the participle PEPISTEUKWS. Translators and > commentators are divided on this. Some have concluded that it > modifies > both. The NET note says this:> > “The phrase ‘together with his entire household’ is placed at the > end > of the English sentence so that it refers to both the rejoicing and > the > belief. A formal equivalence translation would have ‘and he rejoiced > > greatly with his entire household that he had come to believe in > God,’ > but the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33 > presumes that all in the household believed.”____________Now that seems like an entirely theologically motivated comment. YourPresbyterians, Reformed, Episcopalians, Lutheraans and Catholics mighttake issue with that.georgegfsomsel___________
[] BDAG, Louw and Nida, or TDNT?[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming.
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 13 09:31:45 EST 2004
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. [] Another book on Greek Linguistic development At 7:00 AM -0600 12/13/04, George F Somsel wrote:>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:43:56 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo><themelios at charter.net> writes:>> On Dec 12, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Remington186 at aol.com wrote:>> >> > HGALLIASATO PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi>> > I’m thinking that PANOIKEI PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi is an adverbal>> clause,>> > with a>> > “subject,” household, a “verbal,” having committed, and the direct>> >> > object,>> > God. That “He,” the subject of the sentence, is a part of “the>> > household” is,>> > unquestionable.>> >>> > As a verbal clause would it inevitably modify rejoiced — or is>> there>> > something in Greek that has it simply modifying HGALLIASATO,>> including>> > both ‘he’ and>> > ‘rejoiced,’ both subject and predicate?>> >> Hi Remington:>> >> Yes, the participial phrase PEPISTEUKWS TWi QEWi is adverbial,>> subordinate to and modifying HGALLIASATO, probably semantically>> indicating the cause of the rejoicing. And TWi QEWi does indeed>> complement PEPISTEUKWS.>> >> Participles, since they are not finite, do not have subjects.>> PANOIKEI>> is an adverb. The question here is whether PANOIKEI modifies the>> main>> verb HGALLIASATO or the participle PEPISTEUKWS. Translators and>> commentators are divided on this. Some have concluded that it>> modifies>> both. The NET note says this:>> >> “The phrase ‘together with his entire household’ is placed at the>> end>> of the English sentence so that it refers to both the rejoicing and>> the>> belief. A formal equivalence translation would have ‘and he rejoiced>> >> greatly with his entire household that he had come to believe in>> God,’>> but the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33>> presumes that all in the household believed.”>____________> >Now that seems like an entirely theologically motivated comment. Your>Presbyterians, Reformed, Episcopalians, Lutheraans and Catholics might>take issue with that.PLEASE, let’s not get started along those lines or even make such asuggestion in jest; it’s NOT a matter of a reader or opinion-giver’stheological commitment but of the demonstrable meaning of the text, insofaras the meaning is demonstrable. The question at hand is how the Greek textof Acts 16:34 is to be construed and in particular how PANOIKEI relates toHGALLIASATO and PEPISTEUKWS. This question was discussed back in July (July1-2, 2004, subject-header, “Acts 16:34). A.T. Robertson’s note is cited,”It is in an amphibolous position and can be taken either with “rejoiced”(HGALLIASATO) or “having believed” (PEPISTEUKWS, perfect active participle,permanent belief), coming between them. The whole household (family,warden, slaves) heard the word of God, believed in the Lord Jesus, madeconfession, were baptized, and rejoiced.” At any rate the immediatelypreceding context makes it perfectly clear that the jailer himself and theentire household were baptized.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming.[] Another book on Greek Linguistic development
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming. Timrake at aol.com Timrake at aol.com
Mon Dec 13 11:23:16 EST 2004
[] John 12:41 [] TINI LOGWi – I Cor. 15:2 In a message dated 12/13/04 9:32:45 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> > PLEASE, let’s not get started along those lines or even make such a> suggestion in jest; it’s NOT a matter of a reader or opinion-giver’s> theological commitment but of the demonstrable meaning of the text, insofar> as the meaning is demonstrable. The question at hand is how the Greek text> of Acts 16:34 is to be construed and in particular how PANOIKEI relates to> HGALLIASATO and PEPISTEUKWS. This question was discussed back in July (July> 1-2, 2004, subject-header, “Acts 16:34). A.T. Robertson’s note is cited,> “It is in an amphibolous position and can be taken either with “rejoiced”> (HGALLIASATO) or “having believed” (PEPISTEUKWS, perfect active participle,> permanent belief), coming between them. The whole household (family,> warden, slaves) heard the word of God, believed in the Lord Jesus, made> confession, were baptized, and rejoiced.” At any rate the immediately> preceding context makes it perfectly clear that the jailer himself and the> entire household were baptized.> I agree. The reading that separates PANOIKEI from either the ptc. or adverb is far too subtle. The narrative includes “all those in his house” in the preaching, “all his” in the sacrament of baptism, and at the very least the “whole house” in the either believing or rejoicing. To conceive that suddenly the action of one of these last two is meant to be exclusive to the jailer strikes me as quite unnatural to the depiction of things in the context.Pr. Tim rakePraise Lutheran ChurchMaryville, TN
[] John 12:41[] TINI LOGWi – I Cor. 15:2
[] Acts 16:34 & sentence diagramming Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 14 13:18:09 EST 2004
[] Validity of the Attributed Genitive (LONG) [] LIQON ZWNTA and LIQOI ZWNTES in 1 Peter 2:4 & 5 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:53:06 -0800Forwarded for: Travis Jackson <trepp at telus.net>When one has much to express, and yet wants his expression to be fluidlyreadable, he has to make a choice concerning which items of a great burst ofthought he shall string together in any given line, often finding it impossibleto include every element of that thought in one and the same line explicitly -nonetheless, his having other related thoughts attached, in his mind, to whathe has selected to write explicitly, will often be seen reflected in what hehas written, so that a writer’s partially unwritten thought may jump out at thereader of the explicit grammatical matter. I would agree both with theprecaution against taking an adverb as a modifier of two participles, so as todo justice to the grammatical choice made, and with the idea that intranslation the sentence be arranged so as to hint at the fuller thoughtbeneath the grammatical selection, evident in the writer taking care to atleast pair together what elements he did (even if he could not apply one adverbto both elements) – as well as pairing these with outside information (that is,in other sentences) belonging to the same passage.As Iver Larsen commented:>As I looked at other examples of adverbs with perfect participles in the>GNT, it seems that the pattern is for the adverb to precede the participle.>It is then most likely that the adverb PANOIKEI modifies the following>participle PEPISTEUKWS – he had come to believe with his whole household.>Since the basis for the rejoicing is the believing it follows that>semantically it is also PANOIKEI that he rejoices. So, when we talk about>grammar, I would say that PANOIKEI modifies the participle, but in>translation one can formulate the text in such a way that the PANOIKEI>applies to both verbal ideas. I would therefore disagree with the REB>rendering you quoted, because>it implies that only the jailor had come to faith in God.Travis Jackson (name added in conformity to BG protocol)
[] Validity of the Attributed Genitive (LONG)[] LIQON ZWNTA and LIQOI ZWNTES in 1 Peter 2:4 & 5