JD wrote: > David. you misrepresent Thayer. I do not why > you are doing this. My Thayer's lexicon is nearly > worn out. I documented my reference to Thayer. > It is Thayer who uses the word "because" in regard > to R 5:12 - not me. This statement of yours > ".... You progressed from the translation "for" to > "because" is grossly inaccurate. Thayer did this.
Please stop with the characterizations of "gross inaccuracy" or "misrepresentation." You gave your rendition of the word "because" in place of the word "for" in a post PRIOR to your ever mentioning Thayer. That is what I had responded to. Then you brought up Thayer to defend yourself. There are many other Greek scholars you can bring up that will argue in like manner. There has been a great deal of debate among Greek scholars about the proper translation of this passage. I'm not interested in resurrecting an old debate. I was just trying to nudge you away from taking an extreme position by reminding you of this very basic word "epi" and the connotation that it has. In regards to Thayer, surely you must know he is not real high on my list of heros because of his involvment with the Revised Version which led to a plethora of modern translations. This does not mean that I cannot discuss his opinions, but as a source of authority, he is somewhat weak from my personal background and perspective. Please take notice that Thayer did not translate this passage using the word "because." Do not overlook this. What you quoted him as saying was, "epi, used here in Romans 5:12 carries with it the nuance of 'because of' or on the account of." I don't have a problem with "nuance," and I much prefer "on the account of" rather than "because." What I had a problem with was how you used the word "because" as if it should be translated this way, rather than doing as Thayer and indicating that it carries with it a nuance of "because of." There is theological baggage that causes men like Thayer and you to desire to read the passage this way. If you were just honest and sincere in discussing this with me, you should be able to agree with me that "epi" does at its base mean "on" and so "on that," which having a nuance of "on the account of" or perhaps even "because" is not the same thing as using a word like "gar" or "ek" that would more forcefully mean that. There are a few other passage that use "epi ho," such as 2 Cor. 5:4 and Phil. 4:10. In Phil. 4:10, it is translated "wherein" and in 2 Cor. 5:4 it is translated as "for that" (like it is in Rom. 5:12). Try fitting in the translation of "because" in these contexts. It is not so easy. James D.G. Dunn thinks the debate has been settled and agrees with the concept of "for this reason that, because" yet he also offers "in view of the fact" which I like even better. Again, I don't have a problem with these suggestions, as long as we keep the Greek in mind at the same time. We don't actually go translate the passage using these words or we get a paraphrase. We are talking about nuance here. I personally think the nuance that was meant to be conveyed is along these lines of "in view of the fact," but not in the same way as you read it, to the exclusion of what was just said, but rather in support what he had just said, that by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin. What evidence do we have? Well, it is in view of the fact that "All have sinned." We might also add, "all die." JD wrote: > When you, in your typical arrogant style, make > it appear that my knowledge does not rise to the > level of a first year student and then proceed > to misquote and misunderstand Thayer in this > post -- well, it appears that the problem lies > in your neck of the woods. Be humble, John. I did not say that your knowledge does not rise to the level of a first year student. Your pride is getting in the way. I was reminding you of your roots in Greek study. "Epi," John. Come on. A very common Greek word, and part of many English words too. I don't know why you fight so fervently over this. If Thayer were here, surely he would say, "ah, yes, good point, but when used with "ho," there is a nuance of "because of" or "on account of" in that it is literally "on that." To which I would agree, but stand fast that it does not discount what had led up to this, but rather it affirms and points out evidence in support of what was said leading up to this. I wish he were here so we could see how he would respond to such. Another consideration for you, because you asked: Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor. 1981. An analysis of the Greek New Testament. They offer, "inasmuch as, seeing that." I kind of like the nuance of "seeing that." It seems to capture more of the nuance that I perceive being communicated in Rom. 5:12. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
