Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us

[David Miller]

I cannot believe you are pressing this point, John.  I was simply trying to nudge you toward the correct connotation of "epi ho."  You progressed from the translation "for" to "because."  I only cautioned you from stretching the translation further away from its connotation than is warranted.  Instead of welcoming my kind remark, you chose to make a battle out of it.  Why?  Is your doctrine really based upon the translation of "epi ho" meaning "because"?  If it is, I will surely take time to expound upon this with the proper Greek authorities if you like.  However, I know that such is a waste of time.  It won't change your theology one bit.  I'm just reminding you of some very basic Greek, and I am surprised that you even took time to look up this extremely common preposition.  It's like someone taking college English and arguing over what the word "on" means and quoting English dictionary authorities to support their position!  I consider this to be a ridiculous, wasteful use of time.   Now if your attitude were a little different, and you were actually curious to understand my knowledge of Greek on this passage, I would consider expounding the point to you out of love.  As it is, it seems like you only want to argue and mock.  I'm not interested.  Consider yourself to have won the argument if you like.  I don't really care.   By the way, Thayer did not contradict anything that I said.  Surely you already know this, but it appears that you are baiting me to waste my time arguing about foolish things.  Following is Thayer's definition of epi:   G1909 ἐπί epi Thayer Definition: 1) upon, on, at, by, before 2) of position, on, at, by, over, against 3) to, over, on, at, across, against Part of Speech: preposition A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root     ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us   It is not my education that is in question.   When one claims to be a scholar (it is DM who makes that claim, not me), is given scholastic evidence as to why he is mistaken in his "educated" conclusion and  responds with nothing but put-downs to the exclusion of any other consideration   --   well,  when that happens to me  -   I get aggravated.   When one claims a certain scholastic level and responds with arguments that do not reflect scholarship  -  I am inclined to question the educational claims of that person.   In fact  --  it might be that David was actually casting doubt on my educational claims.     I mean, he writes as if any first year Greek student would know that he is correct IN THE FACE OF QUOTED AUTHORITY  to the contrary  -  authority that has nothing to do with my credentials, such as they are.  When one does this,  I believe he/she should be held accountable for their claims of educational accomplishment  --  especially when they challenge  someone as well received as JH THayer.      JD             -----Original Message----- From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:15:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us   On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:06:00 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You just made it a major point, David the Scholar.  You are self taught the last  I heard.  I am not. Since you have decided to make your point while putting me down  -  we will follow this through.  By the way  -  what was your PhD thesis written on?   I will be glad to send you a copy of mine, when finished.  We could exchange. As well as you write.  I am sure it would be quite interesting.  I think you find that I can present an intelligently written thesis when I set my mind to it.    Big woop JD; David is probably much better off - He and the Holy Ghost would be far less stressful and/or complicated.  What is the big deal with your, education, Greek, logic, and thesis?  The Book has already been written.  Now if we can just understand what it is saying to us.   jt