[] 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax Kimmo Huovila kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi Mon Jul 17 03:06:43 EDT 2006 [] 2 Kings 5:18 in the Greek Septuagint [] 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax What is the syntactic relationship between hO, ANTITUPON, and BAPTISMA in 1. Pet. 3:21?hO KAI hUMAS ANTITUPON NUN SWiZEI BAPTISMA, OU SARKOS APOQESIS hRUPOU ALLA…
[] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivated translation, at times”) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com Mon Jun 29 06:51:17 EDT 2009 [] Theologically motivated translation, at times [] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Rod Rogers…
“Christian” in 1 Peter 4:16 Bob Wilkin ges at airmail.net Wed May 26 16:31:10 EDT 1999 PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Gospel of Peter 10 Jim West wrote: Perhaps we need to take account as well of 1 Peter 4:16, which suggeststhatif one “suffers as a “christian”, nonetheless let him not be ashamed; butinstead let…
1 Peter 3:20: APEIQHSASIN John Barach jbarach at telusplanet.net Mon May 1 18:49:44 EDT 2000 Previous message: BDAG 4th Edition Next message: 1 John Fellow s:I’m working ahead on my exegesis of 1 Peter and I’ve come to one of thestickiest passages in the Bible, I suspect: 1 Peter 3:18ff. While I’dappreciate any help…
2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Timothy Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au Wed May 26 08:24:08 EDT 1999 ICHQUS 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? After a long time without a computer, I return to !2 Peter 2:2 reads:KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or…
God’s glory and human glory Jim West jwest at highland.net Sat May 15 14:33:28 EDT 1999 Jim West’s reply to – I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor? God’s glory and human glory I stand by my previous note regarding the NT writer’s unwillingness to saythat God’s glory or honor is inherent in…
1 Peter 3:7 John Barach jbarach at telusplanet.net Wed Sep 8 19:49:10 EDT 1999 1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format Fellow ers:Could any of you help me understand the syntax of 1 Peter 3:7? Thepassage reads:hOI ANDRES hOMOIWS SUNOIKOUNTES KATA GNWSIN hWS ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI TWiGUNAIKEIWi APONEMONTES TIMHN hWS…
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.
Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:
“In origin was the Word”
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outl … ologue.htm
ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
has none.
Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
I’m confused.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Danny Diskin
Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm
Paul-Nitz wrote:
Thanks. That’s simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way.
Why would we expect a Dative Ptc?
(I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don’t seem to fit here.)
Because ἀρκετός normally takes the dative + infinitive, so a participle modifying ὐμῖν or ἡμῖν would also normally be in the dative, πεπορευομένοις. That’s what motivates people to try to explain the accusative…
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 3rd, 2014, 6:49 am
