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 05-24-2010, 08:59 AM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,316,525 times
Reputation: 327

Advertisements

[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;14309919]
Quote:
As far as I'm aware, Thayer's the base text for Strong's Greek dictionary.
Thayer's lexicon is actually a translation of Grimm's work that Grimm produced from Wilke's New Testament. Actually, Thayer revised and enlarged Grimm's work while at Harvard in 1885 and subsequently revised it further in 1889. Thayer's preface goes into it in much more detail. I have a hardcopy on my desk that may be different from yours. What work of Thayer's are you referring to?

Quote:
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.
Strong's is somewhat different from Thayer's. I think Strong's was written in 1890 or so, shortly after Thayer's second revision. A simple comparison of what Thayer and Strong produced will show you that Thayer's work is not the basis of Strong's.

Quote:
Yes.
Good. The translations in the KJV are really not the basis of Strong's definitions. That's what I'm trying to bring out here. The basic meanings that Strong gives to the Greek words are not necessarily how those Greek words were translated in the KJV.

Quote:
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.
This is our point of contention. Whether "something" or "someone" can be anything other than a human being on earth. You'll have to prove to me that "something" (other than a human on earth) is impossible to be born of the Spirit. I gave you an example from John the Baptist that God is able from stones to raise up children to Abraham. If God can do this, what precludes the Spirit from giving spiritual life to those who have already died?

Quote:
The fact that is absolutely nowhere refers to a non-human without explicitly designating another taxonomy.
Read John 3:8. Where does it say that the Spirit can only regenerate a human being on earth? Can you show me where it says this or how you arrived at that conclusion from the text? What you've given me so far doesn't cut it.

Quote:
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.
The "certain" ones that Paul spoke of, as originally comprising the 500, I stretched a little for my sake (I knew that going in), I can concede that. But not the first example that Jesus spoke of. Those that Jesus spoke of are ones "from the dead".

Quote:
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.
The evidence that I have IS found in the scriptures. You just haven't discovered it yet. However, that was really not my point. What I wanted to bring out is that your knowing, or not knowing, is not the basis of whether evidence exists. What I'm trying to tell you nicely..lol..is that you might not know everything. I hope that does not shock you.

Quote:
Speaking explicitly of the workings of the spirit, not of his understanding of the word τις. Again, this argument has absolutely no logical basis.
Well, let's read verse 8:

Joh 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Where does it say that the term "every one" can only refer to humans on earth? The Spirit blows where he wills. The Spirit is not limited to where, upon whom or what or even how He regenerates. At least this text (or any other scripture that I can think of) does not limit the work of the Spirit in this regard.

Quote:
His misunderstanding was ideological, not lexical.
Nicodemus' held to assumptions that Jesus corrected by using repetitive language, as I posted before. This is our primary area of disagreement that we're having here. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Your wrong.

Quote:
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.
The repetitive statements by Jesus CORRECTED the wrong assumptions held by Nicodemus. Your assumption of the context is similar to Nicodemus', it's wrong, as Jesus clearly pointed out in verse 10.

Quote:
And I've already responded in the previous link I provided.
Yes, I read it, but it did not convince me. Sorry, you'll need to do better.

Quote:
And you have absolutely no philological or literary basis for that conclusion.
You're simply arguing from your conclusion.
The conclusions I have are derived from scripture (the literary basis you spoke of) that sets the ground work for my arguments. I would like to hear your arguments as to why the Spirit cannot regenerate a person's spirit, after they die. This is what we're really discussing, right?

Quote:
It's not a restatement. The two kinds of rebirth are not identical.
It is a restatement by Jesus. Both of the rebirths that Jesus spoke of in verse 3 and 5 ARE IDENTICAL, but using different (but synonymous) terms (synthetic parallelism) to explain it. Being born "from above" IS IDENTICAL TO being born of "water and the Spirit". Let's read it here:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;

Quote:
It is very clearly synthetic parallelism,
That is exactly what I told you previously in my post. Go back and reread it.

Quote:
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.
Look, synthetic parallelism is stating something with synonymous terms. Being "born from above" IS SYNONYMOUS with being "born of water and the Spirit". Now look, you're going to have to stipulate that you understand English as well as Greek for this dialogue to continue. Can you do that for me?

Quote:
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.
You may have formal training in linguistics and biblical languages, but I don't think this equates to being taught by the Spirit. Paul had plenty of formal training also, as a Pharisee. Paul called it all dung:

Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

You sound like a fairly intelligent guy (though you'll need to also stipulate that your IQ is above 70, I'm getting a different read on this end..LOL), but you really don't come across as being knowledgeable concerning things of the Spirit. Perhaps that's where your training should be more tightly focused, right?

Quote:
No, it's my professional impression. If I'm wrong then correct me, but I don't think I'm wrong.
It's still your impression. I guess neither one of us impresses the other...

Quote:
I don't believe you have the skills or the resources to make such judgments with any real degree of competency, though.
When it comes to spiritual things, I have the same opinion of you.

Quote:
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.
I did show you and my arguments are still valid. You've not shown me why I should think otherwise, or change my position.

Quote:
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.
I have shown you the evidence. But like Nicodemus, your false assumptions are preventing you from seeing it.

Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 05-24-2010 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 951,419 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Thayer's lexicon is actually a translation of Grimm's work that Grimm produced from Wilke's New Testament. Actually, Thayer revised and enlarged Grimm's work while at Harvard in 1885 and subsequently revised it further in 1889. Thayer's preface goes into it in much more detail. I have a hardcopy on my desk that may be different from yours. What work of Thayer's are you referring to?
I don't use Thayer's. I use LSJ, BDAG, Muraoka's Septuagint Lexicon, or the TDNT. Thayer's has been obsolete for over a century. If I recall correctly, Strong's (at least the version I saw) said the Greek dictionary was based on Thayer's or Vine's lexicon. It may just be that they use Strong's numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Strong's is somewhat different from Thayer's. I think Strong's was written in 1890 or so, shortly after Thayer's second revision. A simple comparison of what Thayer and Strong produced will show you that Thayer's work is not the basis of Strong's.
Strong's, if I recall, has been published hundreds of times with different lexicons in many of the different printings. The one I saw, again, if I recall, said the lexicon was based on Thayer's, although it may have been Vine's. The original dictionary used by Strong's is not the dictionary used in the contemporary publications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Good. The translations in the KJV are really not the basis of Strong's definitions. That's what I'm trying to bring out here. The basic meanings that Strong gives to the Greek words are not necessarily how those Greek words were translated in the KJV.
Each contemporary publication of Strong's that has a lexicon has to be based on some other lexicon. Strong's original dictionary is no longer used. Do you know which lexicon your version of Strong's is based on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
This is our point of contention. Whether "something" or "someone" can be anything other than a human being on earth. You'll have to prove to me that "something" (other than a human on earth) is impossible to be born of the Spirit.
Again, the context absolutely precludes it. Unless a lexical marker indicates that the word does not reference a person, we have to interpret it as a reference to a person. I've said this already, and you've ignored it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
I gave you an example from John the Baptist that God is able from stones to raise up children to Abraham.
Absolutely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the word τις, it comes from a different author, and it provides no contextualization for the interpretation of τις in John.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
If God can do this, what precludes the Spirit from giving spiritual life to those who have already died?
Nothing, but that's not the point. The point is that the text doesn't say anything about the dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Read John 3:8. Where does it say that the Spirit can only regenerate a human being on earth? Can you show me where it says this or how you arrived at that conclusion from the text? What you've given me so far doesn't cut it.
You're hardly in a position to be making judgments calls about what the Greek does and does not say. I've been quite clear and I've explained the grammatical principles more than once. "Nu-uh!" didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work in the future, so stop wasting your time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
The "certain" ones that Paul spoke of, as originally comprising the 500, I stretched a little for my sake (I knew that going in), I can concede that. But not the first example that Jesus spoke of. Those that Jesus spoke of are ones "from the dead".
And the word τις is modified by that partititive genitive, which is why you know it refers to the dead. As I said, without such a marker you have to go by what the word generically refers to, which in this case is a human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
The evidence that I have IS found in the scriptures. You just haven't discovered it yet. However, that was really not my point. What I wanted to bring out is that your knowing, or not knowing, is not the basis of whether evidence exists. What I'm trying to tell you nicely..lol..is that you might not know everything. I hope that does not shock you.
I'm well aware that I don't know everything, but you're simply wrong in this instance. I've explained it several times over and you've yet to even address my concerns. You clearly don't know Greek and you're clearly unable to engage this discussion on the appropriate levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Well, let's read verse 8:

Joh 3:8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Where does it say that the term "every one" can only refer to humans on earth? The Spirit blows where he wills. The Spirit is not limited to where, upon whom or what or even how He regenerates. At least this text (or any other scripture that I can think of) does not limit the work of the Spirit in this regard.
I didn't say say the Spirit couldn't influence someone who has died. Please see my comments here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Nicodemus' held to assumptions that Jesus corrected by using repetitive language, as I posted before.
And I pointed out that that's not a principle that is found in Koine Greek and that you can't even begin to show that it is. You did not try to refute that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
This is our primary area of disagreement that we're having here. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Your wrong.
"Your" is a possessive pronoun, as in "your laptop," or "your comments." You mean to use "you're," the contraction of "you" and "are," as in "you're wrong." You can shout "Nu-uh!" all you want, but at the end of the day you're the one without the skills or resources to approach this question on a philological level, and the purely philological argument which you cannot even begin to defend.

I see nothing else in your post that deviates from "Nu-uh!" and a bewildering lack of an actual case. Unless you can produce something in the way of actual evidence rather than fallacious eisegesis and dilettantish attempts at Greek philology, you've lost this debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:09 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,316,525 times
Reputation: 327
[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;14314709]
Quote:
I don't use Thayer's.
LOL...Well then, don't pretend you do.
Quote:
I use LSJ, BDAG, Muraoka's Septuagint Lexicon, or the TDNT. Thayer's has been obsolete for over a century. If I recall correctly, Strong's (at least the version I saw) said the Greek dictionary was based on Thayer's or Vine's lexicon. It may just be that they use Strong's numbers.
I think you're still making things up...and on the fly...LOL Strong, Thayer and Vine are actually different animals when you compare their definitions side by side.

Quote:
Strong's, if I recall, has been published hundreds of times with different lexicons in many of the different printings. The one I saw, again, if I recall, said the lexicon was based on Thayer's, although it may have been Vine's. The original dictionary used by Strong's is not the dictionary used in the contemporary publications.
Don't really know how many times it's been published. I had the original years ago. I think it was his own work. Vine's was published I think in the 1940's, I used to have the hardback edition, but now only use the electronic one. Strong's is not based upon Vines.

Quote:
Each contemporary publication of Strong's that has a lexicon has to be based on some other lexicon. Strong's original dictionary is no longer used. Do you know which lexicon your version of Strong's is based on?
Not really. I use a simplified electronic version of it with e-sword. No information as to how it differs from my hardback edition.

Quote:
Again, the context absolutely precludes it. Unless a lexical marker indicates that the word does not reference a person, we have to interpret it as a reference to a person. I've said this already, and you've ignored it.
Fine, but it does not establish a doctrine that precludes it. That's still what I'm trying to get at and what prompted our discussion.

Quote:
Absolutely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the word τις, it comes from a different author, and it provides no contextualization for the interpretation of τις in John.
LOL...BS It's all the same author, the Holy Spirit, just a different person that spoke the words. Same Spirit though. This is what I mentioned early on by not focusing on the spiritual aspects of what is being said. I think you're giving way to much weight to the linguistics side of it and overlooking the spiritual emphasis.

Quote:
Nothing, but that's not the point. The point is that the text doesn't say anything about the dead.
And that's why a doctrine cannot be devised from John 3 that rules it out.

Quote:
You're hardly in a position to be making judgments calls about what the Greek does and does not say. I've been quite clear and I've explained the grammatical principles more than once. "Nu-uh!" didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work in the future, so stop wasting your time.
Hey, don't tell me what I'm in a position to do and not do...lol...The only one saying Nu-hu (whatever that means) is you my friend. Now knock it off.

Quote:
And the word τις is modified by that partititive genitive, which is why you know it refers to the dead. As I said, without such a marker you have to go by what the word generically refers to, which in this case is a human being.
No, you go by what it says: "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.

Quote:
I'm well aware that I don't know everything,
Now was that so hard to say?

Quote:
but you're simply wrong in this instance. I've explained it several times over and you've yet to even address my concerns. You clearly don't know Greek and you're clearly unable to engage this discussion on the appropriate levels. I didn't say say the Spirit couldn't influence someone who has died. Please see my comments here.
I didn't say influence, I said regenerate. Do you know the difference?

Quote:
And I pointed out that that's not a principle that is found in Koine Greek and that you can't even begin to show that it is. You did not try to refute that.
I don't see why it has to be an established principle within academic circles for it to be considered true. Consider it now established...LOL

Quote:
"Your" is a possessive pronoun, as in "your laptop," or "your comments." You mean to use "you're," the contraction of "you" and "are," as in "you're wrong."
Yes, I'll concede that. You've got me there...LOL I'm not really very good at checking my grammar (or spelling) as I type. Fast fingers, slow mind...I'm getting old...LOL

Quote:
You can shout "Nu-uh!" all you want, but at the end of the day you're the one without the skills or resources to approach this question on a philological level, and the purely philological argument which you cannot even begin to defend.
Fine. I'm without skills or resources. Happy? But this does not change the fact that I'm using a spiritual truth (teaching) from John the Baptist to show that God can certainly regenerate the dead after death, similar to raising rocks up out of the dirt. Did you agree with this? The argument doesn't really need to be developed linguistically for it to be true.

Quote:
I see nothing else in your post that deviates from "Nu-uh!" and a bewildering lack of an actual case. Unless you can produce something in the way of actual evidence rather than fallacious eisegesis and dilettantish attempts at Greek philology, you've lost this debate.
I really did not see this, or try to start this off, as a debate. I am intrested now in getting your impressions on whether a person, after death, can be regenerated to spiritual life. Can you give us some scriptures to define your beliefs? Make your case heard. Give me a full, spiritual exegesis, like you've done linguistically with the text in John chapter 3.

We might have started off on the wrong foot...lol...but it doesn't have to end here. Give me some scripture to work with that tells me what you believe and the doctrines you hold to.

Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 05-24-2010 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,292,960 times
Reputation: 420
The King James translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Some authors to help you are:

Todd S. Beall, Merrill Tenney and Nathan Han
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 03:07 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,316,525 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
The King James translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Some authors to help you are:

Todd S. Beall, Merrill Tenney and Nathan Han
Were these 47 scholars paid for by the King to do their work? Do you know if they tried to satisfy the King of England's doctrinal positions when translating the text? The question I've always had, was how much influence the Church Of England held in determining the translations outcome? I know many that are KJV1611 Only (divinely inspired English text) advocates. But how realistic is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2010, 08:52 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,316,525 times
Reputation: 327
Daniel, when you find time, please return to finish our discussion. I still have some questions that you might be able to help me work through. I've been giving it more thought and perhaps what you've said might (I did say might) change my position .

Jesus' first use of the term τὶς (in John 3:3) does not appear (IMO) to have been contextually established, at least not at this point of the conversation, with Nicodemus. Nothing that I see from verse 2 would suggest it had. Is there something you're seeing that I'm not?

In your response, you said I had not addressed your concerns. I did actually, but I don't think you really caught it. You then said:

"Unless a lexical marker indicates that the word does not reference a person, we have to interpret it as a reference to a person."

So now you have me thinking (something I don't often do...lol). My obvious question is: Why does it have to be interpreted in this way? What is the basis of that rule and why should we understand it as such? I'll grant you that ἄνθρωπος was Nicodemus' assumption, it clearly was. But are we to look to Nicodemus to define the context of what Jesus was saying? I have my doubts about doing this. Here is why:

Rom 8:6 for the mind of the flesh is death, and the mind of the Spirit--life and peace;
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,
Rom 8:8 for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

We know from verse 10 that Nicodemus was clearly of the flesh, and could neither hear, or know the things of the Spirit, or what Jesus was telling him. Right?

So then, if there is no "lexical marker" (I suppose we need to first establish this?) to guide us when the term τὶς is first employed by Jesus, why would we be forced to interpret it like Nicodemus, according to the flesh, or according to the interpretive rules you're advocating? I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just not sure why.

The reason I raise the question is obvious. Jesus told us (further in John's Gospel) that the words He speaks are Spirit and life, and that the flesh profits nothing from it:

Joh 6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;

This being so, why should we interpret it as Nicodemus did?

Anyway, I hope you'll find the time to respond.

Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 05-25-2010 at 09:32 PM..
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