hOION … hOTI in Rom 9.6 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Apr 12 01:12:07 EDT 2002
e-Greek & information discounts e-Greek & information discounts Greetings all:Rom 9.6 OUC hOION DE hOTI EKPEPTWKEN hO LOGOS TOU QEOU.According to BGAD and B-D-F, OUC hOION … hOTI is a mixture of OUC hOIONand OUC hOTI. But what is the syntactic relationship of the hOTI clause tohOION as things stand in Rom 9.6? It seems that hOION is a predicatenominative completing an implied ESTIN. Is the hOTI clause subordinate tohOION, functioning as an epexegetical clause? That is, does it complete thethought of hOION, so that the idea is, “But it is not such a thing as thatthe word of God has failed”? That’s a very rough English rendering, but Ithink you get the point.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com
e-Greek & information discountse-Greek & information discounts
[] Translation of Romans 9:6 Lincoln Mullen lmullen at bju.edu
Sat Oct 30 17:10:06 EDT 2004
[] (no subject) [] Translation of Romans 9:6 The first part of Romans 9:6 reads, “OUC hOIN DE hOTI EKPEPTWKEN hO LOGOSTOU QEOU.”I can see a few different ways to translate that:”But it is not as if the word of God has failed.”Or”But that the word of God has failed is not so.”Yet both of those translations seem coldly logical, lacking the passion ofthe passage. Would a translation like this one be acceptable?”But that the word of God has failed . . . by no means!”- – – – – – – – – – -Lincoln MullenStudent, Bob Jones Univ. (SC)Groton, Massachusettslmullen at bju.edub
[] (no subject)[] Translation of Romans 9:6
[] Translation of Romans 9:6 Dan Starcevich dan.star at comcast.net
Sun Oct 31 10:42:58 EST 2004
[] Translation of Romans 9:6 [] 1 John 3:9 If you are trying to stay close to the order of the original wording I wouldsuggest:But by no means has the word of God failed. It seems to me that the OUC hOIN has been put at the front of the sentencein order to emphasize the impossibility of the failure of God’s word.If you are looking for a paraphrase of the clause, I think Peterson’sMessage is a good model:Don’t suppose for a moment, though, that God’s Word has malfunctioned insome way or otherNote how he keeps the word order in place to emphasize the fact that Paul ismaking an emphatic objection to the possibility that God’s word has failed.God BlessDan Starcevich—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln MullenSent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:10 PMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Translation of Romans 9:6The first part of Romans 9:6 reads, “OUC hOIN DE hOTI EKPEPTWKEN hO LOGOSTOU QEOU.”I can see a few different ways to translate that:”But it is not as if the word of God has failed.”Or”But that the word of God has failed is not so.”Yet both of those translations seem coldly logical, lacking the passion ofthe passage. Would a translation like this one be acceptable?”But that the word of God has failed . . . by no means!”- – – – – – – – – – -Lincoln MullenStudent, Bob Jones Univ. (SC)Groton, Massachusettslmullen at bju.edub— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Translation of Romans 9:6[] 1 John 3:9