Keep saying it -- maybe it will become true someday !!!!! I have presented the two posts in question. I can do nothing more.
Now, let's do talk substance. Regarding your use of "nuance." It is interesting that you see a separation between a lexical nuance and a lexical definition !!! Do you have a source that suggests that such is even possible !! How does one discuss a definition apart from nuance? Answer: with silence !!
In other words -- it cannot be done.
Secondly, regarding your remark below, that you quoted Thayer "verbatim." First of all, I do not believe that you actually own a Thayer's lexicon. Am I correct on that assumption? Additionally, your quoting of Thayer (below) is hardly verbatim, David. At best, it is summary in nature, not verbatim, and it leaves off "because" or "on the grounds of " (on the account of ). As I have mentioned before, I actually own the lexicon. I know verbatim, David and you, sir, are no verbatim(er).
If you are going to manipulate Greek scholarship, what hope is there for a satisfactory conclusion ---- cause I do not do such things.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:58:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of us
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<
/SPAN>. 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 -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:13 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adam - sin - and the rest of usDavid, 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?JDDavid 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
-----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 dodefintion or translation or meaning. LOL JDPlease 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.
