|
What you highlighted below in red is my response to an earlier post of
yours, dated 8-14-05, where you wrote to Judy (emphasis on "because" is
mine):
-----------------
...
Ro
5:12 is a predictive certainty !! WE DIE BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE SINNED.
...
When you argue for "sinful nature" in 5:12, you change the very wording of
the passage. You have taken mankind's failure out of the equation and
inserted his potential for
failure. Verse 12 is not saying that we die because we share the same
potential for sin. Rather, with predictive certainty, Paul declares that we die because we have all have done the very
same thing -- we have sinned.
----------------
I was addressing how you had progressed in your discussion such that you
were reading the text with a certainty using the word "because" instead of the
word "for." I was trying to nudge you to keep the "because" idea a nuance
rather than a direct translation. I pointed out an alternative word
that he could have used, but did not. You have a habit of
reading too much into the Greek commentators opinions about translations.
I think you would do better to spend more time trusting your own reading and
using guys like Thayer for comparison with what you pick up on your own reading
from your own knowledge of Greek. Furthermore, I never said nuance
has nothing to do with... xxx. What I was concerned about was you losing
the real meaning of the passage by overemphasizing the mention of nuance by a
Greek scholar. My purpose in quoting Thayer's definition was to bring you
back to earth so to speak, but instead you claim that I misrepresented Thayer
simply by quoting his definition of "epi" verbatim!
Yes, let's get back to substantive issues please. You are making
a mountain out of a mole hill.
David.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:13
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and
the rest of us
David, Here is what you posted to me yesterday (so soon we
forget !!). It is this post (immediately below) that was my
source for the comments you objected to as being, somehow, off base also
included in this post.) You have, once again, confused
postings . A rebuttal is not required, here. I know
whereof I speak. Compare the highlighted sentences and note the
similarities of each. Back to the substantive issues at
hand -- shall we?
JD
David writes:
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<
/SPAN>, 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
?????
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: David Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]Sent: Fri, 19
Aug 2005 11:13:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest
of us
JD repsonds to the above post:
> 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. David gets confused:
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 [sic] 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.
From an exegetical point of view, one of the more novel of ideas .... nuance has nothing to do defintion or translation or meaning. LOL JD
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.
|
