For Bill Grover

I simply cannot get through on the Passion or Apology forums so I am going to try this.

Huparchon=hupo, under and arche, a beginning.

I don't deny your interpretation nor do I deny Robertson's who says the difference between the present tense, huparchon (denoting “eternal existence in the morphe [form] of God”), and the Lord’s “becoming” (aorist tense) in the likeness of man."

Nor do I deny Vine who says, this grammatical form denotes “an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it.

Yes, I feel I was well taught for what little Greek I took. I didn't follow the "party line" at GSST. I undertook my own research into the meanings of Greek words aside from the lesson materials.

By the way, there is a new Greek text, NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, An Inductive and Creative Approach, by Paul M. Fullmer, that is simply excellent for learning the language.

I just got a copy and plan to study it. It can be found here http://home.comcast.net/~bpfullmer

As I have stated earlier, I view the NT from the Aramaic, not the Greek so the Greek is not that important or relevant to me.

Now, as to your remark about having two master's and a PhD and using primary sources, I can and have and do. I simply said that one cannot spout them off in general conversation years after one studies and engages in research. Oh, sure, to some extent, but not to the extent of one currently engaged in research when the sources are fresh in one's mind.

You know, Bill, we could go around and around. I don't accept the Trinity, you do. That's what makes theology interesting. Not everyone agrees.

That's why we have Ryrie, Scoffield, and Chafer on one end and Bultmann, Tillich, and Harnack on the other and everyone in between from B.R. Lakin to Marcus Bach.

You can use Paul and his Epistles. I will use the Gospels, Hebrews and James. The Gospels tell what Jesus said by those who were with him.

Yes, I know tradition says Paul wrote Hebrews. Luther thought it was Apollos; Tertullian, Barnabas; Harnack, Priscilla; and Ramsey, Phillip. So, no one really knows. I go along with Harnack.

Paul is a religion about Jesus, not of Jesus.

I like the Quaker viewpoint of the Bible: "Truth is in the Bible but the Bible doesn't contain all truth," or something like that.

 

Re: Re: For Bill Grover

Bill, Bill, Bill, most of the verses you gave me were from the Gospel of John. You want me to prove you wrong (or the verses wrong) using the Greek.

Do you really think the unlearned and ignorant John of Acts 4:13, whose native tongue was Aramaic, wrote the Gospel of John in Greek?

Looking at the Book of John from a linguistic point of view there are just too many "ands" to indicate Greek authorship.

In other words, Bill, the recurring use of "and...and," known, as you surely know, as parataxis, reflects Semitic influence and is set forth as contributing evidence (I know, primary sources, ha!) that the Book of John was translated into Greek from an Aramaic original.

You place so, so much stock on knowing the Biblical languages, my Christian brother. You have made several statements regarding Biblical languages.

You have questioned whether one can really be a good Biblical expositor (exegete) and engage in sound hermeneutics without a thorough knowledge of the Biblical languages.

You have even impugned educational institutions of higher learning questioning the academics and scholarship. Yet, if I am not horribly mistaken, you only know two Biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek.

If you believe that one needs to have a thorough knowledge of the Biblical languages then don’t you fall into the category you place others and me?

Are you also not a good expositor, hermeneutist, and exegete because you don’t know Latin, Akkadian, Aramaic, or Ugaritic?

Would it be fair for me to question your scholarship or your alma maters because you cannot decline the Latin word Deus in the Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Ablative cases and explain each usage in Scriptures?

Would it be fair for me to impugn your scholarship or alma maters because you cannot tell me the case of discipuli in John 4:2?

In Philippians 2:6 (your favorite, ha!), what is the Latin explanation of in forma, non rapinam arbitratus?

What are the differences between Logos, Verbum, and Miltha?

Since the Catholic Church, beginning around 600 A.D. andlasting hundreds of years, refused to allow the Bible to be available in any other language, wouldn’t knowledge of Latin, in order to translate the Vulgate be in order?

Would it be fair to question your scholarship because you cannot tell me why the Aramaic words, lelana, qaitha, suthva, hivya, hizva, arya, gurya and orya are not contracted?

Can you translate this most important and critical saying of Jesus, “Zil hakheil: Talmid kulhon amme: u amid innon bshim Ava vawra uruha d’Qudsha?”

Would it be fair for me to question you on Judges 5:17? "Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships?”

Did the Tribe of Dan have ships?

What is the explanation of this using the Ugaritic word ‘an instead of the Hebrew 'nywt?

What do scholars think about Psalm 29 and its similarity to Ugaritic poetry?

What’s the explanation of Proverbs 26:23 and "silver lips." How does the Ugaritic mygysps k solve this?

Now, I won’t question your scholarship or your alma maters if you can’t answer any of these questions and you don’t question mine when you know something I don’t, deal?

 

Re: Re: For Bill Grover

One final thought, Bill, do you really think anyone outside of academia really cares about any of this?

Very few, if any at all, on here or in the world care at all.

It's important to you and that's good. But, with all due respect, who else really cares?

When was the last time you saw any book on theology at the top of the best seller's list?

We're using valuable space and time on a fourm for DL!

 

Not sure about reading the Bible with a fine tooth comb.

Just got through Leviticus and do not fully understand the significance of the Ginsu Knives and the George Foreman Grill.

 

Well, Dennis, let me put it this way. Suppose you went around insisting that CCU is not in Santa Ana but in, oh, Charlottetown. Suppose you were saying that because you are a student at CCU you know better than the CCU website, people who have seen their building, and the general consensus of all informed opinion from the owner of CCU to Levicoff and Douglas, all of which insist that CCU is in California. Suppose you adduced that the Micmac language has words for "coast" and "university", and that there is a tavern in Moncton called the California Grill. Suppose you concluded that private unsupported opinion, failed analogy and a random collection of studied irrelevancies trump all actual knowledge. You could then conclude that you alone knew the real deal on Cal Coast and that everybody from the BPPVE to degreeinfo and back were in a giant conspiracy to pick on you as the solitary herald of truth about what should by rights be called Maritime Screech University.

Then you'd understand why the Bible includes provision for sacrificing pidgins.

 

Heh.

 

I tried; I failed.
Maybe it will clarify itself in Numbers .


That would be Newfie Screech. It's available here but have never drunk any. I might start talking in an 18th century mixed English/Irish dialect. 80% of any conversation with a Newfoundlander consists of the expressions pardon me and excuse me.

 

Speaking of languages, how cool is this? Someone can acutally speak Lilliputian!

 

Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

===

Bill says: No, that's not a deal. I never made claims about Aramaic or silver lips or Dan's ships. I responded to the claims you made. When I ask ask you for evidence you scurry around in search of asides! {unless elsewhere answered}


You are dodging the issue once again as usual. The issue is , Jimmy, you make claims. You make claims but don't prove them:

You say you have a working knowledge of Greek--prove it on John 1:1-3 and Philippians 2:6 and Hebrews 1.

You say Paul does not teach "of Jesus"--prove it!

You say John did not know Greek--prove it.

You say John wrote in Aramaic--prove it.

You say Greek and Hebrew are insufficient for exegesis--prove it

you say isa does not mean isos-- prove it.

You say form of God does not =God--prove it.

You say Calvin denied the Trinity--prove it

You say Barth denied the Virgin birth--prove

You say Bethany of Dothan is a good school--prove it

You say GSST is too- prove it.

You say John does not teach Christ is God--prove it.

You say Hebrews does not teach Christ is God--prove it

You say one can think the New Testament is full of mistakes but that we know Jesus died for us and souls are saved--prove it.

As far as others readers are concerned I'm sorry they are not interested. But they don't have to read this and I'm not going to let your balony go unanswered.

 

I know it's Newfie screech, Dennis. When all else fails, misappropriate.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

John and the whole of the NT as well as challenges to the Greek theory and so-called "Hellenist Jews":

1. C. F. Burney, M.A., D. Litt., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford.

2. John Kitto, D.D,. F.S.A.

3. Dr. Solomon Zeitlin, Jewish Quarterly Review

4. Dr. Joseph Lkausner

5. Dr. E. W. Bullinger

6. Matthew Black

7. Dr. Charles Cutler Torrey

8. Dr. Albert Schweitzer

9. Dr. George Howard, Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1977

10. Dr. Edward Horowitz

11. Robert Taylor's "Diegesis"

12. Dr. Franz Delitzsch

13. Dr. J. E. Salkinsohn

14. Dr. Arnold Ehrlich

15. Edward Gibbon

See also Henry J. Cadbury, The History of Christianity, Vol. V.

Not to mention, as an aside, the words of the early church fathers such as Papias (a contemporary of John), Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc., who all said that, for instance, Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek.

St. Jerome says that, according to a copy which he had seen in the library of Caesarera, the quotations were made in Hebrew.

Now, many Biblical scholars say "Hebrew" actually means "Aramaic," as in Acts 21 and 22 when it says Paul spoke in the "Hebrew language (tongue)."

Thus there is more than enough evidence the whole of the NT was originally penned in Aramaic.

Josephus, says a number of Jews tried to learn Greek, but couldn't.

Josephus himself, said " I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language;

"although I have so accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness. For our nation does not encourage those that learn the language of many nations.

"On this account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors, with great patience, to obtain this Greek learning, there have yet hardly been two or three that have succeeded herein, who were immediately rewarded for their pains."--Antiquities.

As you know Josephus was a Jewish historian and well educated as well as a contemporary of the early Christians.

Josephus was about 50 years old when John wrote his Gospel. Again, he was a contemporary who said this in 42 A.D.

He is a PRIMARY source. If he could not learn Greek then ignorant John couldn't. If he said hardly two or three could learn it, then he should know as he was there, in the flesh!

Was Guthrie!

This has to end now because we don't get anything settled. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You cite your authorities and referrences and I, mine.

I'll take the words of Josephus over any authority you present any day of the week.

I will also take the words of Papias, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc., on this issue over any modern scholar.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

We have already exhausted John and Philippians.

Hebrew 1:2:

The word translated “world” is the plural of the Greek word aion meaning “ages.” Other words meaning “world” are kosmos and oikoumene.

When Satan tempted Jesus, showing Him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.”

As far as Philippians 2:6, Bill, read what these scholars say:

1. Bullinger

2. Kittel

3. Bauer

5. Thayer

Thayer says the Greeks stated children reflect the appearance ( morphe ) of their parents.

Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

Kittel says, in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe ), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature.

According to Bauer's Lexicon, Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues.

Finally, Bill, morphe is the root word many other words that show morphe means an appearance or outward manifestation.

The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” ( morphosis) of godliness. Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly.

The Mount of Transfiguration, where Christ was “transformed” ( metamorphoomai ) before the apostles is another usage. The Disciples didn't see Christ getting a new nature. They saw His outward form alter.

And, Bill, Christians are “transformed” ( metamorphoomai ) by renewing our minds.

I feel like I am arguing with Ivan Panin!

 

Hey Dennis, I discovered that our relatives were all wrong. J. V. Stalin was in fact a great, wise, and humanitarian leader. These experts say so:

1. Lazar Kaganovich

2. Walter Ulbricht

3. Lillian Hellman

4. Vice President Henry A. Wallace

5. German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (temporarily)

6. Enver Hoxha

7. Nexhmije Hoxha

8. Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej

9. Ana Pauker

10. Paul Robeson

11. Boleslaw Bierut

12. Rakosi Matyas

I've read Enver Hoxha's memoirs, and he knew Stalin personally. That settles it. I'se the bye that builds the boats, too.

 

You left out Alfred E. Newman, Paris Hilton, Rin Tin Tin, Foghorn Leghorn and Lassie! Let's be historically accurate now, okay?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

===

Bill says: You will take the word of Papias then? OK. Here's that word: Why did Papias only connect Matthew to "Hebrew" and not the others since he mentions the others, if John also wrote in "Hebrew." If Matthew were not the exception, why particularly mention him?

But you see you have a serious problem in saying that Papias knew John and John was too stupid to write Greek when his pal Papias, himself, wrote in....ummmm...GREEK. Duh, so, OK:

***PLEASE, call on your Dothan and GSST research and logical skills to EXPLAIN WHY PAPIAS, FRIEND TO JOHN, COULD WRITE IN GREEK BUT JOHN COULD NOT...HMMMMMMMMMMMM????

 

There just had to be a ghost writer involved, was Hoxha literate?

So you know the Newfoundland national anthem.

 

It's been years, but yes, I think Hoxha was actually literate. He may have gone to university in France for some period of time (or am I confusing him with Zhou En-lai?).

Oddly, Comrade Enver represents a very familiar type. Call it the mental sundae from hell. Take a person of fairly low socioeconomic or cultural background. Add a smattering of education, often dubiously gained. Combine with a bitter native resentment of real culture and real education, as of those who possess such things. Add a spurious but virulent populism evidenced in casual garb or insistence on informal forms of address. Drizzle a grievance-driven conspiracy theory. Top off with the claim to arcane information giving the true explanation of vast social or historical factors.

The Soviet satellite goons of 50 years ago and today's promoters of shabby "education" bear a startling mutual resemblance. Millists have the rage; they just lack the death camps. And that, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.

 

Bill says: Yes. I'm claiming Biblical scholarship.

Okay, scholar, since portions of the OT were written in Aramaic and since the Gospels, especially John is chock full of Aramaisms; and since John, Jesus, Peter, and Paul, et. al., spoke Aramaic and, since many RA/ATS seminaries teach Biblical Aramaic and/or Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, translate this for me:

Abwoon d'bwashmaya
Nethqadash shmakh
Teytey malkuthakh
Nehwey tzevyanach aykanna d'bwashmaya aph b'arha
Hawvlan lachma d'sunqanan yaomana
Washboqlan khaubayn (wakhtahayn) aykana daph khnan shbwoqan l'khayyabayn
Wela tahlan l'nesyuna. Ela patzan min bisha
Metol dilakhie malkutha wahayla wateshbukhta l'ahlam almin.
Ameyn

Also, since many scholars (Virolleaud and Ginsberg among them) believe problems in the OT can only be solved using the Ugaritic language, explain Deuteronomy 14:21 to me.

Why would an Israelite even think about boiling a kid in its mother's milk? Explain this using Ugaritic.

You still haven't explained the "ships" problem in Judges 5:17.

Explain why Psalm 104 has fascinated scholars. What did Bishop Robert Lowth, the Oxford scholar say about this?

Explain the puzzle of Amos' profession. Explain the differences betweeen "noqed" and "ro eh."

Explain the differences between "shepherd" and "shepherdship," and tell what the Ugaritic words "nqd" and "nqdm" mean and then, Bill, tell me what Amos' profession was.

You will soon have a Th.D. You claim to be a Biblical scholar. What happens when you are approached by someone due to your scholarship and Th.D. and cannot answer these Biblical questions?

How is the Ugaritic word "hkl" and the Hebrew word "hykl" different and how are they similar?

Come on, scholar, the world is waiting your expertise.

Would you like to dialogue about the Akkadian language next?

Your friend,