Ephesians 1:4

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω Andrew Batishko abatish at xmission.com
Tue Aug 8 08:30:18 εδτ 2006

[] Why Monotonic Greek. Was: Free Polytonic Uncial GreekUnicode Font? [] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω ι‘m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”ι‘m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. ι could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second ι‘ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but ι really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew

[] Why Monotonic Greek. Was: Free Polytonic Uncial GreekUnicode Font?[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 8 08:59:26 εδτ 2006

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω [] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi First, text, Text, τεχτ καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and ι happen to be one. ι‘m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that is strictly against the protocols of this group, but ι would caution against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. Sometimes we can all be surprised when ουρ positions do not seem to be confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what it is saying. As to your third option, ι see no reason to take εν AUTWi with ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be ιν ηιμ holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is simply too great. In any case, ι think that what we have with ειναι . . . is what α. τ. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”). ____________ Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com> wrote: ι‘m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”ι‘m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. ι could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second ι‘ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but ι really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω[] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi

[] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi Andrew Batishko abatish at xmission.com
Tue Aug 8 10:29:55 εδτ 2006

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω [] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi Thanks for your response, George.You are correct that ι have dismissed #2 without proper consideration. My reason for that was because in my mind, #2 kind of states that we were a part of Him (implying we existed) before the world was created. So, ι wasn’t really looking at the issue of election in this case. Apparently though, there are other was of interpreting that particular reading that ι hadn’t thought about.My problem is that ι can’t understand why εν AUTWi is in the text. ι could understand if it was just καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS προ καταβολησ κοσμου…ι take it from your statement that it is a point of contention whether the verse should be read “καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS εν AUTWi” or “εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου…” In other words, there are no clear indications in the text as to which way it should be read. Is that correct?Could you explain to me (off-list if that’s more appropriate) what you would understand “εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου…” to mean?Andrew BatishkoGeorge φ Somsel wrote:> > First, text, Text, τεχτ> > καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS > και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi> > Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of > the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to > mesh with the> rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with > the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and ι happen to be > one. ι‘m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that > is strictly against the protocols of this group, but ι would caution > against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. > Sometimes we can all be surprised when ουρ positions do not seem to be > confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what > it is saying.> > As to your third option, ι see no reason to take εν AUTWi with ειναι > hHMAS hAGIOUS και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be > ιν ηιμ holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is > simply too great. In any case, ι think that what we have with ειναι . . > . is what α. τ. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament > in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the > “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the > preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”).> > ____________> > > */Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com>/* wrote:> > ι‘m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so> forgive> me if the answer to this is obvious.> > Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something> like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we> would be holy and blameless…”> > ι‘m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. ι could see it being> attached to three different possible concepts:> > * He chose us in Him> * in Him before the foundation of the world> * that we would be (in Him) holy and blameless> > The second ι‘ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with> the> rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the> foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is> probably the most likely, but ι really don’t understand what it means> for Him to choose us in Him.> > Can someone help me understand the meaning?

[] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 8 10:47:20 εδτ 2006

[] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi [] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew ι‘m not sure what points you are trying to distinguish by your question regarding whether εν AUTWi should be read with the preceding word or with the following. βοθ — εν AUTWi and προ καταβολησ κοσμου — modify εξελεξατο. εν AUTWi refers back to εν XRISTWi in the preceding verse to state that it is “in Christ” (or perhaps “for Christ”?) that we are chosen. προ καταβολησ κοσμου is a temporal designation designating when this choosing took place. _________ Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com> wrote: Thanks for your response, George.You are correct that ι have dismissed #2 without proper consideration. My reason for that was because in my mind, #2 kind of states that we were a part of Him (implying we existed) before the world was created. So, ι wasn’t really looking at the issue of election in this case. Apparently though, there are other was of interpreting that particular reading that ι hadn’t thought about.My problem is that ι can’t understand why εν AUTWi is in the text. ι could understand if it was just καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS προ καταβολησ κοσμου…ι take it from your statement that it is a point of contention whether the verse should be read “καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS εν AUTWi” or “εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου…” In other words, there are no clear indications in the text as to which way it should be read. Is that correct?Could you explain to me (off-list if that’s more appropriate) what you would understand “εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου…” to mean?Andrew BatishkoGeorge φ Somsel wrote:> > First, text, Text, τεχτ> > καθωσ εξελεξατο hHMAS εν AUTWi προ καταβολησ κοσμου ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS > και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi> > Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of > the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to > mesh with the> rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with > the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and ι happen to be > one. ι‘m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that > is strictly against the protocols of this group, but ι would caution > against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. > Sometimes we can all be surprised when ουρ positions do not seem to be > confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what > it is saying.> > As to your third option, ι see no reason to take εν AUTWi with ειναι > hHMAS hAGIOUS και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be > ιν ηιμ holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is > simply too great. In any case, ι think that what we have with ειναι . . > . is what α. τ. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament > in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the > “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the > preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”).> > ____________> > > */Andrew Batishko /* wrote:> > ι‘m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so> forgive> me if the answer to this is obvious.> > Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something> like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we> would be holy and blameless…”> > ι‘m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. ι could see it being> attached to three different possible concepts:> > * He chose us in Him> * in Him before the foundation of the world> * that we would be (in Him) holy and blameless> > The second ι‘ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with> the> rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the> foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is> probably the most likely, but ι really don’t understand what it means> for Him to choose us in Him.> > Can someone help me understand the meaning?— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[] Eph 1:4 εν AUTWi[] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew

[] Eph 1:4 εν αυτω Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Aug 8 11:08:40 εδτ 2006

[] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew [] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew Dear Andrew,ι would classify εν αυτω as both instrumental and as a locative of place or sphere. Christ is the insturment through which we are chosen and pictured as the sphere in which we are blessed and chosen. ι regard the latter as more basic in this text and to imply the former. Several recent commentators take the governing “in Christ” reference this way in vs 3, usually speaking of “in Christ” as carrying both incorporative and instrumental significance (see ο‘Brien; Hoehner; Lincoln). It is only natural to take εν αυτω of v. 4 in the same way, meaning that believers are chosen as a consequence of their union with Christ. ι think you pose false distinctions in your 3 options. Prepositions typically modify verbs, but do not have to. So it is most natural to take εν αυτω with “He chose”, but the timing of that choice is being located before the foundation of the world. And as George mentioned, your final option indicates the purpose of this election. So 1 on your list is grammatically what εν αυτω attaches to, but it is integrated into the whole idea that is stated.Brian Abasciano*****************************ι‘m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”ι‘m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. ι could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second ι‘ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but ι really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew

[] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew[] Lexicon: – β-Hebrew
εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Esteban Otero oterofamily4 at msn.com
Sat Jan 11 21:19:30 εστ 2003

αναστασισ νεκρων vs αναστατισ εκ νεκρων τε in John 4)καθωσ εχελεχατο hHMAS εν αυτω προ καταβολησ κοσμου ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS και αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν αγαφ 5)προορισασ hHMAS εισ υιοθεσιονδια ιησου ξριστου εισ αυτον κατα θν ευδοκιαντου θεληματοσ AUTOUMy questions are in regards to the ειναι clause and its relationship between εχελεχατο and προορισασ.First, is the ειναι clause a (1)purpose/intended result clause (somewhat epexegetical) or (2)the continued object of εχελεχατο (viewing προ καταβολησ κοσμου as parenthetical? Let me give a couple of translations to illustrate in case my question isn’t clear.1) even as he selected us for himself before the foundation of the world, in order that/for the purpose of we might be/us being holy and blameless in his presence2) even as he selected us for himself, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in his presenceThe reasons for my confusion are these:1) if the first hHMAS is the primary object of εχελεχατο and the ειναι clause is a purpose/intended result/epexegetical clause then προορισασ hHMAS seems to make the first hHMAS redundant as the primary object. The hHMAS of προορισασ seems to be the primary deictic indicator of person, i.e. object of the whole thought clause, since προορισασ is an aorist participle antecedent in time to εχελεχατο (ι think). If προ καταβολησ κοσμου is taken parenthetically, can the hHMAS of the ειναι clause be taken as an expressed resumptive indicicator (basically serving to connect εχελεχατο hHMAS with ειναι hHMAS …)? This would make the object of God’s selection our being holy and blameless as opposed to us being something else. ι don’t know if that is valid.2) On the other hand, all the works ι have consulted (including Louw & Nida’s offered translations) as well as every translation ι‘ve looked at take the ειναι clause as purpose, etc. If ι am wrong about the relationship of προορισασ with εχελεχατο, and verse 4 can be taken “absolutely”, then it makes good sense to view the ειναι clause as purpose. Lastly, ι think it makes good sense to take εν αυτω to mean “for himself” almost as a way of further expressing the middle of εχελεχατο. Robertson discusses this a bit. Also, a while back Mike Sangrey offered the possibility of reading ιν ξριστω as “with respect to Christ” due to seeing εν as merely highlighting the personal aspect of the dative form. Is this a valid translation.Sorry for the length. Any help is greatly appreciated.Esteban OteroTampa, FL_________________________________________________________________Protect your πξ – get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

αναστασισ νεκρων vs αναστατισ εκ νεκρωντε in John

[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Long, Fred longf at bethelcollege.edu
Mon Jan 13 11:26:41 εστ 2003

Greek Instructor Needed? [b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Esteban, My initial response was to resist your notion to take the εν αυτω as “forhimself” rather than as “in him” in accordance with the emphasis on “inChrist” throughout the whole passage and book of Ephesians, whatever we areto make of this (Christ’s agency, corporate representative, mysteriousunion, etc.) See for example: 1:3 εν CRISTW1:6 εν τω HGAPHMENW1:7 εν hW1:9 εν AUTWHowever, ι may be open to change this resistance due to evidence fromsearching data that related to your more primary question about EXELEXATOfollowed by the infinitive ειναι and hHMAS repeated. ι have found that there are many instances where the verb εχελεχατο is foundwith an infinitive complement (to choose to do something). For example, inthe λχχ: Deut 12:5, 11, 21, 26; 14:2, 23, 24; 16:2, etc.; 1 Sam 2:28. Then, ι looked more closely at one of these grammatical parallels.Deuteronomy 14:2 “For you are a holy people to the λορδ your God, and theLORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all thepeoples who are on the face of the earth ” (νασβ). The Greek is σεεχελεχατο κυριοσ hO θεοσ σου γενεσθαι σε αυτω λαον περιουσιον (“The Lord haschosen you to be a choice people for himself”). Due to the correspondenceof theme and grammar, ι am inclined to think that Paul’s Greek in Eph 1:4has been influeced by this sort of usage (Hellenistic? or Semitic?) and eventhis particular passage. First, there is the complementary infinitive withEXELEXATO. Second, a verb of being is found as the complement (γινομαι asopposed to ειμι). Third, the repetition of the direct object in the”subject” of the infinitive is the same (σε…σε in Deut and hHMAS…hHMASin Eph). Fourth, the thematic link of the formation of a “holy” people.Fifth, “for the Lord” or “For himself” in support of your take on the εναυτω as meaning “For Himself.” Taken together, these correspondences areweighty enough to suggest a direct intertextual influence. Interestingly,the NA26 or UBS3 do not have Deut 14:2 as an allusion. As for the ειναι and hHMAS, the repeated hHMAS is emphatic, ι think, and inthe accusative case, since the nominative case is not possible, since it isthe direct object and not the subject of εχελεχατο. As for your main question, ι think that simply understanding a complementaryinfinitive (with purpose connotations from the lead verb εχελεχατο) wouldaptly describe what is going in Eph 1:4, with the explanation of hHMAScoming from the grammatical influence of Deut 14:2 or simply the emphasis onhHMAS.Fred Long+++++++++++++++++Fredrick ψ. Long, Ph.δ. Assistant Professor of New TestamentBethel College1001 ω. McKinley Ave.Mishawaka, ιν 46545(574) 257-2548 longf at bethelcollege.edu> —–Original Message—–> From:Esteban Otero [σμτπ:oterofamily4 at msn.com]> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:20 πμ> To:Biblical Greek> Subject:[] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5> > 1:4 kaqw.j evxele,xato h`ma/j evn auvtw/| pro. katabolh/j ko,smou ei=nai> h`ma/j a`gi,ouj kai. avmw,mouj katenw,pion auvtou/ evn avga,ph|( 5> proori,saj h`ma/j eivj ui`oqesi,an dia. VIhsou/ Cristou/ eivj auvto,n(> kata. th.n euvdoki,an tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/(> > 4)καθωσ εχελεχατο hHMAS εν αυτω προ καταβολησ κοσμου ειναι hHMAS hAGIOUS> και > αμωμουσ κατενωπιον αυτου εν αγαφ 5)προορισασ hHMAS εισ υιοθεσιονδια ιησου> > ξριστου εισ αυτον κατα θν ευδοκιαντου θεληματοσ αυτου> > My questions are in regards to the ειναι clause and its relationship> between > εχελεχατο and προορισασ.> > First, is the ειναι clause a (1)purpose/intended result clause (somewhat > epexegetical) or (2)the continued object of εχελεχατο (viewing προ> καταβολησ > κοσμου as parenthetical? Let me give a couple of translations to> illustrate > in case my question isn’t clear.> > 1) even as he selected us for himself before the foundation of the world,> in > order that/for the purpose of we might be/us being holy and blameless in> his > presence> > 2) even as he selected us for himself, before the foundation of the world,> > to be holy and blameless in his presence> > The reasons for my confusion are these:> 1) if the first hHMAS is the primary object of εχελεχατο and the ειναι > clause is a purpose/intended result/epexegetical clause then προορισασ> hHMAS > seems to make the first hHMAS redundant as the primary object. The hHMAS> of > προορισασ seems to be the primary deictic indicator of person, i.e. object> > of the whole thought clause, since προορισασ is an aorist participle > antecedent in time to εχελεχατο (ι think). If προ καταβολησ κοσμου is> taken > parenthetically, can the hHMAS of the ειναι clause be taken as an> expressed > resumptive indicicator (basically serving to connect εχελεχατο hHMAS with > ειναι hHMAS …)? This would make the object of God’s selection our being > holy and blameless as opposed to us being something else. ι don’t know if > that is valid.> > 2) On the other hand, all the works ι have consulted (including Louw & > Nida’s offered translations) as well as every translation ι‘ve looked at > take the ειναι clause as purpose, etc. If ι am wrong about the> relationship > of προορισασ with εχελεχατο, and verse 4 can be taken “absolutely”, then> it > makes good sense to view the ειναι clause as purpose.> > Lastly, ι think it makes good sense to take εν αυτω to mean “for> himself” > almost as a way of further expressing the middle of εχελεχατο. Robertson > discusses this a bit. Also, a while back Mike Sangrey offered the > possibility of reading ιν ξριστω as “with respect to Christ” due to seeing> > εν as merely highlighting the personal aspect of the dative form. Is this> a > valid translation.> > Sorry for the length. Any help is greatly appreciated.> > Esteban Otero> Tampa, φλ> > _________________________________________________________________> Protect your πξ – get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [longf at bethelcollege.edu]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

Greek Instructor Needed?[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5

Mon Jan 13 16:15:15 εστ 2003

[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Greek Songs for Learning > Esteban, > > My initial response was to resist your notion to take the εν αυτω as “for> himself” rather than as “in him” in accordance with the emphasis on “in> Christ” throughout the whole passage and book of Ephesians, whatever we> are to make of this (Christ’s agency, corporate representative, mysterious> union, etc.) See for example: > > 1:3 εν ξριστω> 1:6 εν τω ηγαφμενω> 1:7 εν hW> 1:9 εν αυτω> > However, ι may be open to change this resistance due to evidence from> searching data that related to your more primary question about εχελεχατο> followed by the infinitive ειναι and hHMAS repeated. > > ι have found that there are many instances where the verb εχελεχατο is> found with an infinitive complement (to choose to do something). For> example, in the λχχ: Deut 12:5, 11, 21, 26; 14:2, 23, 24; 16:2, etc.; 1> Sam 2:28. > > Then, ι looked more closely at one of these grammatical parallels.> Deuteronomy 14:2 “For you are a holy people to the λορδ your God, and the> λορδ has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the> peoples who are on the face of the earth ” (νασβ). The Greek is σε> εχελεχατο κυριοσ hO θεοσ σου γενεσθαι σε αυτω λαον περιουσιον (“The Lord> has chosen you to be a choice people for himself”). Due to the> correspondence of theme and grammar, ι am inclined to think that Paul’s> Greek in Eph 1:4 has been influeced by this sort of usage (Hellenistic? or> Semitic?) and even this particular passage. First, there is the> complementary infinitive with εχελεχατο. Second, a verb of being is found> as the complement (γινομαι as opposed to ειμι). Third, the repetition of> the direct object in the “subject” of the infinitive is the same (σε…σε> in Deut and hHMAS…hHMAS in Eph). Fourth, the thematic link of the> formation of a “holy” people. Fifth, “for the Lord” or “For himself” in> support of your take on the εν αυτω as meaning “For Himself.” Taken> together, these correspondences are weighty enough to suggest a direct> intertextual influence. Interestingly, the NA26 or UBS3 do not have Deut> 14:2 as an allusion. > > As for the ειναι and hHMAS, the repeated hHMAS is emphatic, ι think, and> in the accusative case, since the nominative case is not possible, since> it is the direct object and not the subject of εχελεχατο. > > As for your main question, ι think that simply understanding a> complementary infinitive (with purpose connotations from the lead verb> εχελεχατο) would aptly describe what is going in Eph 1:4, with the> explanation of hHMAS coming from the grammatical influence of Deut 14:2 or> simply the emphasis on hHMAS.> > Fred Long> > +++++++++++++++++> Fredrick ψ. Long, Ph.δ. > Assistant Professor of New Testament> Bethel College> 1001 ω. McKinley Ave.> Mishawaka, ιν 46545> (574) 257-2548 > longf at bethelcollege.edu>

[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5Greek Songs for Learning

[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Pere Porta Roca pporta at tinet.fut.es
Tue Jan 14 00:58:13 εστ 2003

ην in John 1.1a Use of μητι γε in 1 Cor 6.3 —– Original Message —–From: “Long, Fred” <longf at bethelcollege.edu>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:26 PMSubject: [] ρε: αμνοσ-ARNIONDear all,ι‘m seeking for the true difference, if any, between the term ‘αμνοσ‘, lamb,(John 1:29) and αρνιον (Revelation in general, anywhere, for example 5:12,etc.).Is perhaps ο αμνοσ a different animal from το αρνιον?ι‘ve not looked at any biblical Dictionary nor know ι whether such aDictionary speaks about this. Perhaps if ι look at such a work ι‘ll get theanswer which ι‘m seeking for?ι‘m asking myself: If John is the author of both the Evangile and theRevelation is it not a little striking he doesn’t use in both books the sameterm to show or to point to the same animal?Perhaps is an αρνιον a horned and a more developped or grown αμνοσ?Or, if you prefer, is perhaps an αμνοσ the same thing (animal now) as anARNION but one calls αμνοσ the animal when it is in the first months of itslife, that’s to say: αμνοσ = young/baby αρνιον?May we say that in John 1:29 it is not John the evangelist who is speakingbut John the Baptist is speaking so that who uses the word αμνοσ is not John(the writer)?ι‘m from the South Europa area and ι‘ve seen that generally speaking theBible translations to romanic languages –such as Spanish, Catalan, French,Italian and so on– give of both terms the same translation word: sp.cordero; cat. anyell; fr. agneau, etc.Is it done wrong, in the present case, to translate these two differentsterms into the same word? So should αμνοσ be translated into one word andARNION should be translated into another word (if these two different andspecific words exist in the target language, of course)?(Please be not struck by my use of English prepositions: as ι said ι am notfrom the English or anglophone area)ι‘ll be grateful to you for your comments.λ. Besses

ην in John 1.1aUse of μητι γε in 1 Cor 6.3

[b-Greek] εφεσιανσ 1.4,5 Esteban Otero oterofamily4 at msn.com
Tue Jan 14 06:51:47 εστ 2003

Use of μητι γε in 1 Cor 6.3 ην in John 1.1a Mr. Long,Thank you for the response to my questions. ι will check into the parallelreferences you have given. However, part of my question was in regards toverse 5 as well, your discussion seemed to focus on verse 4 only. ι amcurious about the relationship between the hHMAS in προορισασ hHMAS andthe hHMAS in εχελεχατο hHMAS. ι understood you to be saying that the hHMASof the infinitive clause was emphatic, which ι can see. ι apologize if Imisread you.In regards to taking εν αυτω as “for Himself”, here are a few more reasonswhy:1) It is possibile that what is printed as αυτω might be hAUTW2) Two manuscripts, φ(010) and γ(012) both dating to the ιχ cen., haveEAUTW instead, implying that this was understood atleast by some topossibly be taken as hAUTW3) Robertson discusses the “original and continued” reflexive nature ofAUTOS. He even mentions the use of the reflexive pronoun emphasizing thepersonal interest of the Middle voice (pp.680-688, 690-691).Just some thoughts in the morning hours.Esteban OteroTampa, φλ

Use of μητι γε in 1 Cor 6.3HN in John 1.1a