U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2010, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 5,628,309 times
Reputation: 575

Advertisements

You can see an abuse of the Greek here in this OP

Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?

Look near the bottom of the post where it mentions the very same verse that I posted in the OP here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2010, 02:04 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,313,536 times
Reputation: 326
[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;14301750]
Quote:
If you need software to help with parsing, the best you're going to find for free online is okus. It has the New Testament, the Septuagint, and a wide variety of classical texts. The parsing is accurate, as well, unlike the example given in the OP. If there's more than one possibility, it will also give you all the options. It's supplemented with Liddell and Scott's intermediate Greek lexicon, which is the standard. Don't waste your time with Strong's. All it does is list how words are translated in the KJV. It's hardly a helpful tool for learning how the words should be understood.
Yes I have Liddell and Scott's, but Strong's does give the basic meaning of the word and then follows with the translations of the word used in the KJV. So it is helpful in that it gives the reader the first sense of the word. That's why I use it. A person can always dig deeper if Strong's is insufficient.

Quote:
τις does not just mean any person or thing every time it is used. That would be like saying the word λογος means "word," "saying," "statement," "speech," "oracle," "subject," "principle," "account," "analogy," "intent," "matter," "mouth," "reason," and a dozen other things each and every time it is used. That's not how Greek or any other language works. It means "someone," OR it means "something."
But it does not necessarily have to be restricted to a person with a body (such as a man or human being on earth), as my example showed.

Quote:
Once inserted into a semantic context its semantic range is determined by that context. In this instance it is being used as an indefinite pronoun which very clearly refers to a human being. The fact that it is parallel to ανθρωπος makes that even more clear.
I'm not so sure I would agree with you on this. I would say that the word used by Jesus would determine the thought that would give rise to the semantic range allowed. In other words, a word gives the thought to the one that hears it, not the thought determining the word. If Nicodemus had understood correctly how Jesus used the word τις, Jesus would have used Nicodemus' term in verse 4, ἄνθρωπος, to continue on with the conversation. But Jesus did not. He continued to use the indefinite pronoun τις, in verse 5. That to me shows that Nicodemus did not fully grasp what Jesus said, and Jesus knew it.

Quote:
Incorrect. The indefinite pronoun here is very clearly referring to a human being.
It may be and it may not. I don't think it has to always refer to a person with a human body. That is the distinction I was trying to point out here. And I believe John the Baptist would agree.

Quote:
I think you need to learn Greek before posting these kinds of expositions.
Hey, I'm always willing to learn more and I welcome critiques of my posts. No offense, but I don't think you've got it on this one though .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 949,915 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Yes I have Liddell and Scott's, but Strong's does give the basic meaning of the word and then follows with the translations of the word used in the KJV.
The meaning given in Strong's is based on the KJV usage. There is no discussion of etymology or comparative philology, so the "basic meaning" is that determined by early 17th century scholars. To be blunt, Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
So it is helpful in that it gives the reader the first sense of the word. That's why I use it. A person can always dig deeper if Strong's is insufficient. But it does not necessarily have to be restricted to a person with a body (such as a man or human being on earth), as my example showed.
It does not have to be restricted to that, but in this instance it very clearly is. Additionally, I would be surprised if you could provide an example of the word τις being used in reference to a "someone" that was not a human being on earth. I also don't think you could find it used in reference to a "something" that wasn't a physical object on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I'm not so sure I would agree with you on this. I would say that the word used by Jesus would determine the thought that would give rise to the semantic range allowed.
That's reading a grammatical hierarchy into the text for which there is simply zero evidence. Nicodemus' response is not said anywhere to have been a misunderstanding of the referent of Jesus' τις. Additionally, there is simply no instance anywhere in Koine Greek (of which I'm aware) of τις with a "someone" referent that can be shown to be a non-human located anywhere but earth. The Greek simply does not allow for your reading. There's no question here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
In other words, a word gives the thought to the one that hears it, not the thought determining the word. If Nicodemus had understood correctly how Jesus used the word τις, Jesus would have used Nicodemus' term in verse 4, ἄνθρωπος, to continue on with the conversation.
Not true. Christ simply repeats himself with a thematic progression. This is basic synthetic parallelism. There's no rule or literary convention anywhere that tells us a repetition indicates misunderstanding on all levels not included in the repetition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
But Jesus did not. He continued to use the indefinite pronoun τις, in verse 5. That to me shows that Nicodemus did not fully grasp what Jesus said, and Jesus knew it.
There's no literary or philological reason for that impression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
It may be and it may not. I don't think it has to always refer to a person with a human body.
But you have no evidence whatsoever that supports that conclusion. You're just going off of personal impressions, and given your Greek seems pretty basic, I wouldn't start leaning on impressions more than real philological evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
That is the distinction I was trying to point out here. And I believe John the Baptist would agree.

Hey, I'm always willing to learn more and I welcome critiques of my posts. No offense, but I don't think you've got it on this one though .
Can you provide any reasons for your conclusions beyond saying that it just seems to you to mean this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:41 PM
 
1,711 posts, read 1,564,558 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Additionally, I would be surprised if you could provide an example of the word τις being used in reference to a "someone" that was not a human being on earth.
  • Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
  • Luke 9:19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 949,915 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come View Post
  • Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
  • Luke 9:19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.
Close, but both instances of human beings appearing on earth. That they're risen from the dead doesn't really undermine my point, which I'll clarify just so there's no confusion.

The pronoun τις is used to refer to an indefinitely designated member of a group, whether a group of people, or objects, or some other kind of category. Sometimes the group is explicitly designated, as above with the partitive genitive απο νεκρων. Often, however, the term is used without a nomen rectum. In those instances (and there's no clear antecedent) the referent is a person (and that does mean a physical, earthly, human person). it's just one of those conventions in the Greek language. In Hebrew you find it with the word אחד, which means "one." If there's no nomen rectum or antecedent that defines the context, it means "a person." It's the same in John 3. There's simply no cogent argument that could possibly support the assertion that Jesus is not talking about a human being. The notion that Christ's repeating his comments without incorporating Nicodemus' word means he is correcting Nicodemus' misunderstanding of τις as referring to a human is simply untenable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 05:20 PM
 
3,576 posts, read 453,175 times
Reputation: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Close, but both instances of human beings appearing on earth. That they're risen from the dead doesn't really undermine my point, which I'll clarify just so there's no confusion.
What was originally being discussed was someone (sciota) who was saying that once someone (somebody) physically dies they are no longer man or a human being -- this is to justify their belief that no one can repent after physical death and so they will be tormented forever even when they see the error of their ways. and their eyes are opened..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 05:47 PM
 
1,711 posts, read 1,564,558 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan View Post
Close, but both instances of human beings appearing on earth. That they're risen from the dead doesn't really undermine my point, which I'll clarify just so there's no confusion.
Is about them appearing on earth, but is also about them going from the dead. ("one...went... from the dead")
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 949,915 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by meerkat2 View Post
What was originally being discussed was someone (sciota) who was saying that once someone (somebody) physically dies they are no longer man or a human being -- this is to justify their belief that no one can repent after physical death and so they will be tormented forever even when they see the error of their ways. and their eyes are opened..........
I see. I would respond by pointing out that it's kinda silly to point to John 3 as delineating any formal ontological boundaries for being born of the spirit. For one, it presupposes a single soteriological perspective for the entire Bible, which is demonstrably not the case. The Bible is not univocal. Second, it demands each and every word of the text carry much more authority than was ever intended. The Bible's textual instability makes such an approach even more problematic.

Regarding the possibility of repentance after death, Christ went down to free souls from spirit prison. Paul also mentions baptisms for the dead, and because of 2 Maccabees we know that Second Temple Judaism likely accepted ordinances performed on behalf of the dead. That combined with the problems with insisting a loving God would punish his creations for not living a standard they did not know existed seems to indicate to me that there's little room to argue the Bible does not allow for repentance after death. As I said above, though, the Bible is not univocal, and most doctrines are a spectrum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2010, 08:04 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,313,536 times
Reputation: 326
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Quote:
The meaning given in Strong's is based on the KJV usage. There is no discussion of etymology or comparative philology, so the "basic meaning" is that determined by early 17th century scholars. To be blunt, Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew.
In this regard, Strong's is similar to Thayer, Robinson, etc., but I don't think Strong's definitions are derived from how a particular word was translated in the KJV. In otherwords, i don't think Strong was working backwards. Here, let's look at the term τίς, as an example, taken from Strong's dictionary:

G5100
τίς
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

Strong's gives the basic meaning of the Greek word as some or any person or object, as I indicated in my previous post. As to the history of it's usage in ancient and classical Greek writing, I would agree, no further information is found. But that does not mean Strong had none to go by or that this information was lacking when defining what the Greek word means.

After the basic meaning, Strong follows it by a colon and a dash (:-) and the various translations of that word used in the KJV. Is this what your referring to?

Quote:
It does not have to be restricted to that
Good, this is what I wanted to make clear. It does not have to refer to a human being with a body on earth.
Quote:
but in this instance it very clearly is.
Now this we can debate. Where is your proof that it has to?
Quote:
Additionally, I would be surprised if you could provide an example of the word τίς being used in reference to a "someone" that was not a human being on earth. I also don't think you could find it used in reference to a "something" that wasn't a physical object on earth.
Actually, there are a few references. For example, it's used here by Jesus of one from the dead:

Luk 16:30 and he said, No, father Abraham, but if any one from the dead may go unto them, they will reform.

And here by Paul, also speaking of certain ones that died (fell asleep):

1Co 15:6 afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep;

Quote:
That's reading a grammatical hierarchy into the text for which there is simply zero evidence.
But there is evidence (evidence that you might not know?) to support the hierarchy. Are you saying there is none (zero evidence), or that there is none that YOU know of? The fact that you might not be familiar with the evidence does not prove the evidence does not exist. Would you agree with this?

Quote:
Nicodemus' response is not said anywhere to have been a misunderstanding of the referent of Jesus' τίς.
Ok, it does not say specifically that Nicodemus miss understood the word τίς, but Jesus did say that Nicodemus did not know what He was saying to him:

Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel--and these things thou dost not know!

I would agree that there is room to define the phrase "these things". Can you tell me why we should believe the term τίς was understood by Nicodemus, but the other "things" of Jesus' teaching were not? What "things" did Nicodemus not understand, and how can one prove it is limited to those "things"?

Quote:
Additionally, there is simply no instance anywhere in Koine Greek (of which I'm aware) of τίς with a "someone" referent that can be shown to be a non-human located anywhere but earth. The Greek simply does not allow for your reading. There's no question here.
I've already shown where scripture allows for it.

Quote:
Not true. Christ simply repeats himself with a thematic progression. This is basic synthetic parallelism. There's no rule or literary convention anywhere that tells us a repetition indicates misunderstanding on all levels not included in the repetition.
Perhaps not on all levels. Why repeat what is clearly understood? I think the repetition was the very part that Nicodemus was not understanding and why Jesus repeated it using His own previous word τίς, rather than the word Nicodemus used ἄνθρωπος.

Quote:
There's no literary or philological reason for that impression.
I don't follow their conversation that way. Verse 5 is a restatement of verse 3. I don't see it as thematic progression. No new thought or teaching is being presented to Nicodemus or progressed further. The synthetic parallelism of verse 5 was to help Nicodemus understand the previous words spoken by Jesus.
Quote:
But you have no evidence whatsoever that supports that conclusion.
Look, I'm not really trying to write a thesis here with references and a bibliography of my sources. It's really just a basic forum discussion to exchange ideas, and thats how I'm approaching it. Isn't that how you're doing it?
Quote:
You're just going off of personal impressions, and given your Greek seems pretty basic, I wouldn't start leaning on impressions more than real philological evidence.
Is that your personal impression...lol...Look, it's what I've come to believe after studying the information, weighing the subject matter, investigating the objections and deciding for myself what is and what isn't. It's how I do things.

Quote:
Can you provide any reasons for your conclusions beyond saying that it just seems to you to mean this?
I can, but it would take awhile to really get into it...do you really want that, or can it simply be a light discussion of ideas and thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:49 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 949,915 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
In this regard, Strong's is similar to Thayer, Robinson, etc., but I don't think Strong's definitions are derived from how a particular word was translated in the KJV.
As far as I'm aware, Thayer's the base text for Strong's Greek dictionary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
In other words, i don't think Strong was working backwards. Here, let's look at the term τίς, as an example, taken from Strong's dictionary:

G5100
τίς
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

Strong's gives the basic meaning of the Greek word as some or any person or object, as I indicated in my previous post. As to the history of it's usage in ancient and classical Greek writing, I would agree, no further information is found. But that does not mean Strong had none to go by or that this information was lacking when defining what the Greek word means.
I haven't looked at a copy of Strong's in years, but I do believe those "basic meanings" are taken from Thayers and BDB, which are both over 100 years old. I don't believe Strong's provides near enough information to make an informed decision about how a specific word should be understood in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
After the basic meaning, Strong follows it by a colon and a dash (:-) and the various translations of that word used in the KJV. Is this what your referring to?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Good, this is what I wanted to make clear. It does not have to refer to a human being with a body on earth.
Not if it refers to a "something" it doesn't. Unless it specifically identifies a group that is non-human (and as I pointed out earlier, those risen from the dead are still humans on earth), if it refers to a "someone" it is referring to human beings. It absolutely has to define the group if it means someone not human. That's not open for debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Now this we can debate. Where is your proof that it has to?
The fact that is absolutely nowhere refers to a non-human without explicitly designating another taxonomy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Actually, there are a few references. For example, it's used here by Jesus of one from the dead:

Luk 16:30 and he said, No, father Abraham, but if any one from the dead may go unto them, they will reform.

And here by Paul, also speaking of certain ones that died (fell asleep):

1Co 15:6 afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep;
The second is referring to human beings on earth. They are now dead, but the pronoun does not refer to their present state. It refers to their original participation in the group designated previously (namely, "five hundred brethren"). They are were "certain" of the group of living human beings. Regarding the first example, see here. Your argument really has no place to go. This is not how Greek works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
But there is evidence (evidence that you might not know?) to support the hierarchy. Are you saying there is none (zero evidence), or that there is none that YOU know of? The fact that you might not be familiar with the evidence does not prove the evidence does not exist. Would you agree with this?
Certainly, but the possibility of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. If you don't know of any evidence then your argument fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Ok, it does not say specifically that Nicodemus miss understood the word τίς, but Jesus did say that Nicodemus did not know what He was saying to him:

Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel--and these things thou dost not know!
Speaking explicitly of the workings of the spirit, not of his understanding of the word τις. Again, this argument has absolutely no logical basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I would agree that there is room to define the phrase "these things". Can you tell me why we should believe the term τίς was understood by Nicodemus, but the other "things" of Jesus' teaching were not?
His misunderstanding was ideological, not lexical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
What "things" did Nicodemus not understand, and how can one prove it is limited to those "things"?
Because an elided antecedent is determined by the context of the discussion and not its constituent lexical or syntactical elements. There is simply no metadiscussion about lexical concerns, and thus no context that could possibly leave us reason to believe "these things" refers to τις.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I've already shown where scripture allows for it.
And I've already responded in the previous link I provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Perhaps not on all levels. Why repeat what is clearly understood? I think the repetition was the very part that Nicodemus was not understanding and why Jesus repeated it using His own previous word τίς, rather than the word Nicodemus used ἄνθρωπος.
And you have absolutely no philological or literary basis for that conclusion.
You're simply arguing from your conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I don't follow their conversation that way. Verse 5 is a restatement of verse 3. I don't see it as thematic progression. No new thought or teaching is being presented to Nicodemus or progressed further. The synthetic parallelism of verse 5 was to help Nicodemus understand the previous words spoken by Jesus.
It's not a restatement. The two kinds of rebirth are not identical. It is very clearly synthetic parallelism, and I think you're starting to reveal how little you know about literary criticism. You call verse 5 "synthetic parallelism" but you contend that it is not synthetic parallelism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Look, I'm not really trying to write a thesis here with references and a bibliography of my sources. It's really just a basic forum discussion to exchange ideas, and thats how I'm approaching it. Isn't that how you're doing it?
Yes, but I have quite a bit of formal training in this area, and I don't see any reason to allow false ideas to be promulgated just in the interest of being informal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Is that your personal impression...lol...
No, it's my professional impression. If I'm wrong then correct me, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Look, it's what I've come to believe after studying the information, weighing the subject matter, investigating the objections and deciding for myself what is and what isn't. It's how I do things.
I don't believe you have the skills or the resources to make such judgments with any real degree of competency, though. If I'm wrong then by all means show me. How you "do things" is fine if that makes you happy, but I hold to a higher standard, and in public debate forums I hold participants to the same standard. If your argument falls apart under informed scrutiny you have no reason to get upset or defensive. It just means your argument was no good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I can, but it would take awhile to really get into it...do you really want that, or can it simply be a light discussion of ideas and thoughts?
I am happy to wait for you to produce this evidence, and I will be happy to respond to it. I'm not interested in "light discussions" if they comprise uninformed exegesis and amateur lexicography. I prefer to stem the tide of that kind of misinformation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top