Roman 1:17

Roman 1:17 Chong-Hush Lo clo at telcordia.com
Wed Jul 24 17:32:18 EDT 2002

 

Pronunciation Variation UK/US? Gal 6:2 and 6:5 – bearing burdens Roman 1:17ek pistews eis pistin kaqws gegraptai o de dikaios ek pistews zhsetai.ek pistews eis pistin is “From faith to faith” (KJV) or “ByFaith to faith”dikaios ek pistews zhsetai. Means The righteous will live byfaith.Roman 5:1 dikaiwqentes oun ek pistews means “being justified by faith”. C. H. Lo

 

Pronunciation Variation UK/US?Gal 6:2 and 6:5 – bearing burdens

Roman 1:17 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jul 24 23:22:51 EDT 2002

 

Roman 1:17 Roman 1:17 on 7/24/02 2:32 PM, Chong-Hush Lo wrote:> Roman 1:17> > ek pistews eis pistin kaqws gegraptai o de dikaios ek pistews zhsetai.> > ek pistews eis pistin is “From faith to faith” (KJV) or “By> Faith to faith”> > dikaios ek pistews zhsetai. Means The righteous will live by> faith.> Roman 5:1> dikaiwqentes oun ek pistews means “being justified by faith”.> > C. H. Lo> on 7/24/02 2:39 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:> Your email is unintelligible.Say What? Mark you might try some reading in “The Cantos” of Ezra Pound.This email is not even close to being unintelligible. There are peopleposting from other cultures on this list, no?It seems that Chong-Hush Lo has a question about the various functions of EKin the phrase EK PISTEWS in Romans. This question is not hard to understandbut it is hard to answer.******A short unenlightening narrative follows:******In spring quarter of ’68 in a hot basement class room at SPU I listened toDr. Kline lecture on these passages from the Greek text Romans. Kline wasaddressing his remarks to the one or two graduate students and leaving theother thirty students clueless.In the spring quarter of ’76 I listened to Dr. Gary Statts give a brilliantseries of lectures on the same passages from the Greek text of Romans.I have read and reread until my brain is numb the discussions of thesepassages in Sandy&Headlam, Cranfield, J.Murray, HAW Meyer, C.Hodge,H.Alford, L.Morris, . . .I was clueless in ’68 and I am still clueless. Paul’s employment of thephrase EK PISTEWS in these passages remains one of the great mysteries, likethe problem of evil.Hope this doesn’t discourage anyone from learning NT Greek.greetings,clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Roman 1:17Roman 1:17

Roman 1:17 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 24 23:56:44 EDT 2002

 

Roman 1:17 Translation Greek-17-30 For what it is worth, this appears strange on mybrowser too (IE). This may be asking much, but cansomeone on the staff convert incorrecttransliteration to the proper way. I am having a dogof a time converting CAP ENGLISH back to Greek. Now Ihave to convert small cap too!! I think it hard enoughto convert ENGLISH LETTERS back to their Greekcounterparts, but why introduce the burden of yetanother way of transliterating? For those using lowercase, you can push your CAPS LOCK button and it willdo the conversion for you. Right now, I cut and pasteand reformat to ALL CAPS. But it is a little more workthan seems worth it. Someone has mentioned thisbefore… remember, not all of those on the list arenative English speakers. Imagine if we could writeGreek in here and some used UPPER CASE! I still don’tknow those very well.It’s kind of like getting a movie from your localstore and the previous viewer was not: Be kind and rewind.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AL__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Yahoo! Health – Feel better, live betterhttp://health.yahoo.com

 

Roman 1:17Translation Greek-17-30

Roman 1:17 Susan Jeffers susan at read-the-bible.org
Thu Jul 25 08:23:35 EDT 2002

 

Translation Greek-17-30 Roman 1:17 I suspect different folks’ EMail program did different things with this post. Mine had no problem, which is odd since a lot of other posts, such as Iver Larsen’s just after on GAR, come to me dense with equal signs and numbers and lines ending in odd places.Anyway, C. H. Lo wrote:Roman 1:17ek pistews eis pistin kaqws gegraptai o de dikaios ek pistews zhsetai.ek pistews eis pistin is “From faith to faith” (KJV) or “By Faith to faith”dikaios ek pistews zhsetai. Means The righteous will live by faith.Roman 5:1dikaiwqentes oun ek pistews means “being justified by faith”.————————My simple-minded approach leads me toPISTIS leads to [more] PISTIS, the DIKAIOI live by PISTIS, and being made DIKAIOS comes out of PISTIS.Is there a question?Grace and peace of the Lord to you,Susan Jeffers———————————————–EMail: susan at read-the-bible.orgPeace Church Bible Study Home Page: www.read-the-bible.org

 

Translation Greek-17-30Roman 1:17

Roman 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Thu Jul 25 08:57:46 EDT 2002

 

Roman 1:17 Pronunciation Variation UK/US? In a message dated 7/24/02 4:32:31 PM, clo at telcordia.com writes:>Roman 1:17> >ek pistews eis pistin kaqws gegraptai o de dikaios ek pistews zhsetai.> >ek pistews eis pistin is “From faith to faith” (KJV) or “By>Faith to faith”> >dikaios ek pistews zhsetai. Means The righteous will live by>faith.>Roman 5:1> dikaiwqentes oun ek pistews means “being justified by faith”.> Before we get into a lengthy debate on this verse, please read in the archives some excellent post from Fri, 31 May 1996 forward, especially one by Eduard Hobbs.Carlton WinberyCo-moderator

 

Roman 1:17Pronunciation Variation UK/US?

Rom. 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Aug 5 22:27:57 EDT 2002

 

Titus 1:6 Rom. 1:17 The post of Edward Hobbs concerning Rom. 1:17 that I was trying to refer to is given in its entirety below. Sorry I botched it up so in the other post. This was posted Feb 3, 1996, back when we were all so worried about the catastrophes that would surely come when the calendar rolled over to 2000.

 

Titus 1:6Rom. 1:17

[] FANEROW (Rom 3:21) & APOKALUPTW (Rom 1:17-18) David Bielby dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Fri Apr 25 00:18:04 EDT 2003

 

[] Jn 3:16 pas ho pisteuOn [] Machen Answer Key I’ve seen some discussion (in commentaries) on FANEROW & APOKALUPTW thatemphasizes the verb tense distinctions. I’m curious about the way these twoterms are used…in light of Louw/Nida semantical categories…puttingFANEROW into the realm of senses (and BDAG’s entry stressing FANEROW relatesmore to the senses…and L/N’s putting APOKALUPTW into the realm of knowingsomething without specific reference to the senses. What implications does this give in context? Is Paul emphasizing somethingwith FANEROW that is not known in the sense of APOKALUPTW…but perhaps anevent that was seen physically as well? Also, does the use of the perfecttense here verses the present tense for Romans 1:17-18 intensify thispossibility? 3:21 NUNI DE XWRIS NOMOU DIKAIOSUNE QEOU PEFANERWTAI ….1:17 DIKAIOSUNH GAR QEOU EN AUTWi APOKALUPTETAI EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN…. Thank you! David Bielbydbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.orgwww.bloomingtonvineyard.org

 

[] Jn 3:16 pas ho pisteuOn[] Machen Answer Key

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 29 12:57:59 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Dear Paul,Thanks for taking the trouble to upload that information from BDAG. The lexicon is giving more importance to “faithfulness” notion, it seems.>(4) The verb with which the expression occurs is always non-telic.HH: I do not really know what this means. Can you explain it? At any rate, I assume “revealed” in Rom 1:17 can be viewed as non-telic.>Examples include EK TOPOU EIS TOPON (‘from Place to place’), EX >ALOGOU EIS ALOGON (‘from absurdity to >absurdity’), and from >biblical literature, EK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMIN (Ps 83:8 LXX),>EK KAKWN EIS KAKA (Jer 9:3 LXX), and EK QANATOU EIS QANATON, EK ZWHS >EIS ZWHN (2 Cor 2:16).>Arguing from Cognitive Grammar (he says the principles of this field >relating to prepositions are generally agreed among practitioners; I >won’t try to>summarize his reasoning here), he argues that>”the idiom simply underscores immutability, unchangeableness’.>Hence, it seems, Rom 1:17 may be rendered as follows:HH: I do not think that immutability is the idea at all in Ps 83:8 LXX. It seems just the opposite. People go from one degree of strength to another. The same is true in Jer 9:3 LXX. People go from one evil to another. And that is how A. T. Robertson takes it in 2 Cor 2:16: “From one evil condition to another.” One interpretation I’ve heard for the usage (EK — EIS –) is that it implies “completely faith” (Rom 1:17) or “completely death” (2 Cor 2:16). Jamieson, Faucett, & Brown wrote about 2 Cor 2:16:16. savour of death unto death . . . of life unto life–an odor arising out of death (a mere announcement of a dead Christ, and a virtually lifeless Gospel, in which light unbelievers regard the Gospel message), ending (as the just and natural consequence) in death (to the unbeliever); (but to the believer) an odor arising out of life (that is, the announcement of a risen and living Saviour), ending in life (to the believer) (Matthew 21:44, Luke 2:34, John 9:39).The HCSB recently translated the phrase in 2 Cor 2:16 as “a scent of death leading to death.”>‘In the gospel, right relationship with God is being revealed: It is >a path which begins in faith(fulness)>and ends in faith(faithfulness); as it is written, The righteous >shall live by faith(fulness).’> >[By faith(fulness) I mean, of course, to express the>ambiguity that Lawrence has rightly suggestsed may be>intended in Paul’s Greek.]> >If this is right, then Rom 1:17 states the theme of the whole letter.HH: A couple of issues I see here is that one has to add the idea “it is a path which begins.” The prepositional phrases “from faith to faith” do not modify “right relationship” or the idea of a “path” that represents that relationship but rather the verb: “For by it the righteousness of God is revealed —-.” And a right relationship with God cannot begin, it seems, with faithfulness. Faithfulness is something manifested after a relationship already exists.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 29 19:24:54 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 11:37, Paul Toseland wrote:<snip>> Hence, it seems, Rom 1:17 may be rendered as follows:> > ‘In the gospel, right relationship with God is being > revealed: It is a path which begins in faithfulness> and ends in faithfulness; as it is written, > The righteous shall live by faithfulness.’ [I’ve adjusted this> to reflect Paul’s later posting. — Mike Sangrey]> > [By faith(fulness) I mean, of course, to express the> ambiguity that Lawrence has rightly suggestsed may be> intended in Paul’s Greek.]> > If this is right, then Rom 1:17 states the theme of the whole letter.I agee completely. And I agree with Lawrence Schnell, too, when hewrote:>But Paul may be deliberately vague as to whose>faithfulness is in view, because in covenant both>parties obligate themselves to faithfulness, even if>it originates first with God. I’d like to add a couple of points given Paul Toseland’s statement abouttheme. The theme is not only of Romans, but ALSO the theme to theentire discourse of Habakuk.A far, far too brief summary of Habakuk (this is BGreek, afterall!)A Habakuk complains that Israel is messed up; B God says, “I’ll solve that by the Babylonians taking over”; C Habakuk says, “What da huh?” C’ God replies that “the righteous will live by faithfulness (implying, I believe given the context, covenantal faithfulness and God states it in an ambiguous way). B’ Next is a description of judgement on the BabyloniansA’ And last: a prayer by Habakuk based on God being absolute and alsofaithful.Habakuk ends with a summary statement that he will be faithful becauseGod is faithful.So, interestingly, the above forms a chiastic structure essentiallyfolded around 2:4. I believe Paul brings that entire theme forward intoRomans. Therefore, there is a purposeful ambiguity in Rom. 1:17 whichneeds to be reflected in the translation. All the arguments over 1:17trying to resolve the ambiguity, while understandable, are “resolved” byaccepting the ambiguity is intended–but clearly intended.If I might add this lends substantive support to the understanding ofthe controversial genitives in Rom. 3 as subjective–it is Jesus’faithfulness to which we need to respond to in faith.So, coming to grips with the THEME of LARGE discourses (Rom. 1-3 andHabakuk), especially when the author textually inter-relates them,enables one to either disambiguate the text or to make a case (at least)for a clearly intended ambiguity.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Apr 30 12:57:44 EDT 2004

 

[] Danker Festschrift is finally out [] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testamen t Dear Harold,You asked the meaning of ‘non-telic’ verbs. Benwaredefines non-telic verbs as verbs whose action areunbounded. I take it that the term is descriptor ofAktionsart; So, in the case of Rom 1:17,DIKAIOSUNH QEOU is being revealed; theverbal action is ongoing.I will try to deal brefly with the texts you citeas instances of the EK … EIS construction(with the prepositions governing identical objects).Psalm 83:8a LXX (Heb., 84:8a; English 84:7a)POREUONTAI EK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMINThe NET Bible translates Ps 84:7a, ‘They are sustainedas they travel along’, providing the following footnote:/Heb/ “they go from strength to strength.” The phrase“from strength to strength” occurs only here in the OT.With a verb of motion, the expression “from [commonnoun] to [same common noun]” normally suggestsmovement from one point to another or throughsuccessive points (see Num 36:7; 1 Chr 16:20; 17:5;Ps 105:13; Jer 25:32). Ps 84:7 may be emphasizingthat the pilgrims move successively from one “place ofstrength” to another as they travel toward Jerusalem.All along the way they find adequate provisions andrenewed energy for the trip.If this is right, then the English idiom ‘from strengthto strength’, which suggests a progressive increase ofstrength, seems to be a misleading translation of theHebrew. On the other hand, if Benware is right, thenEK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMIN would convey precisely the senseof the underlying Hebrew.Jer 9:2c LXX (English 9:3)EK KAKWN EIS KAKA EXHLQOSANThe NET Bible translates the Hebrew, ‘they do oneevil thing after another’. This doesn’t suggest anintensification of evil as the action progresses;simply that all along their path these people doevil. The idea (if the NET translation is right) isimmutability.2 Cor 2:16abThese instances need to be read in the context of2:14-16b. However, I will quote only 2:16ab, asthe full passage is rather long:hOIS MEN OSMH EK QANATOU EISQANATON, hOIS DE OSMH EK ZWHSEIS ZWHN.These metaphors belong to the larger metaphor ofa triumphal procession (2:14f; QRIAMBOS). Paulportrays himself in as a captive prisoner led by Godin a victory parade in which, evidently, Godcelebrates PANTOTE and EN PANTI TOPWi,Paul’s conversion. Paul’s role in this procession is tospread all along the route the fragrance of Christ (allthis from 2:14). This fragance is to God the pleasingsavour of a sacrifice, the death of Christ amongthose who are perishing and those who are beingsaved (2:15). Among those who are perishing Paul isOSMH EK QANATOU EIS QANATON – ‘an odour thatmeans death from start to finish’, whereas to those whoare being saved he is ‘an odour that means life frombeginning to end’. All along the procession (that is,throughout the Apostle’s entire ministry) the two groups,hOI APOLLUMENOI and hOI SWiZOMENOI, encounterhim in quite different manners. To the one, he always andinevitably brings condemnation and death (as did hispredecessor to the Israelites in the desert, 3:7-9; but tothe pther group, the encounter always brings life.This interpretation makes excellent exegetical sense in thewider context of 2 Cor 2:14-4:15, and has much to commendit; but I must leave it here.Best regardsPaul Toseland

 

[] Danker Festschrift is finally out[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testamen t

[] Rom 1.17 Tanya Hanshew thanshew4 at verizon.net
Tue Apr 26 17:44:49 EDT 2005

 

[] Dead men move [] Rom 1.17 Dear subscribers,To what or whom does EN AUTW refer in verse seventeen?Grammatically speaking, the closest antecedent which agrees appears to bePANTI TW PISTEUONTI though most translations and commentators take it asreferring to TO EUAGGELION. Is this due to the accusative attracting thedative case or is there another answer?

 

[] Dead men move[] Rom 1.17

[] Rom 1.17 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Tue Apr 26 18:09:09 EDT 2005

 

[] Rom 1.17 [] verbal hendiadys in Gal 2:12? On Apr 26, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Tanya Hanshew wrote:> To what or whom does EN AUTW refer in verse seventeen?> Grammatically speaking, the closest antecedent which agrees appears to > be> PANTI TW PISTEUONTI though most translations and commentators take it > as> referring to TO EUAGGELION. Is this due to the accusative attracting > the> dative case or is there another answer?Tanya, the personal pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number, but not necessarily in case. Its case will be determined by its function in its own clause. In this example, AUTWi is the object of the preposition EN, which only takes the dative case. The question is whether AUTWi is masculine or neuter, since it may be either. In the context it seems much more likely, IMO, to understand it as neuter and take TO EUAGGELION as its antecedent. The only other choices are the masculine singular TWi PISTEUONTI or IOUDAIWi. Neither seem to me to make very good sense in the context. HTH.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIMAR studentTrinity Evangelical Divinity School

 

[] Rom 1.17[] verbal hendiadys in Gal 2:12?