Of course I do not want you to copy the whole book !!! Just two or three pages . By the way -- I remember the discussion. It concerned "gar" and its use in the biblical message -- especially Ro 5:12. You have Thayer actually saying something quite the opposite than what I have in Thanyer.
You suggested that your Baker House Thayer's and my Zondervan Thayer's were obviously different. I asked you to copy that definition and send it to me. In fact, I make that request once again. Add the title page of your volume. Should only be three or four pages. I will add it to my Thayer's. The value of such comparison would be extremely useful ---------- in fact, it would probably cause me to stop using Thayer's , altogether. I would nonor this request if the tables were turned. I'll check the mail, daily and gladly reimburse you for your efforts.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:47:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Torah & Jewish traditions
JD wrote:
> You have not read Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon
> [on "telos" ] or you would have encountered my quotation
> with the 14th word of his definition !!!!
Our editions are either not the same, or you have changed the wording in your quotation, John. I'm not going to get into this all over again with you. If you think I am dishonest, there is not much I can do about that, but it will hurt you to think evil of me.
JD wrote:
> In the past, you claimed to have a copy of Thayer in
> your library by Baker Publishing Company.
Yes, I do. I also have an electronic version in e-sword which apparently is condensed. You can get a free copy of it at www.e-sword.net if you like.
Here is another link to the definition in Thayer's Lexicon:
http://www.biblecentre.net/nt/greek/thayer/v2/2-Index.html
I don't see the "14th word of his definition" there, whatever that means. You really should try to use standard means of reference. Talk to Bill Taylor about it. He should be able to help you.
JD wrote:
> I had asked you to copy the definition you claimed was
> from that book , a definition that was counter to the
> Thayer's publication I have. You conveniently left off
> the discussion and went to fight the whirlwind, or something
> of that nature.
I'm sorry, JD, but as I remember it, the definition was several pages long, as you well know. I don't have time to transcribe books for you, and besides, my intent in this forum is not to fight over what some dead man wrote many years ago. I don't even consider Thayer to be the best authority on Greek. At the time he wrote, the papyri had not been well studied. The Greek of the New Testament was thought to be unique, kind of a secret Bible language. I find Bauer et. al. to provide a better lexicon, along with going to one of Bauer's favorite references, Moulton and Milligan, "Vocabulary of the Greek Testament."
JD wrote:
> I do not believe that your Baker edition is different
> in content (speaking of Thayer's wording) from my
> Zondervan edition -- not one word will be different.
> I gave you my address and mentioned that I would
> be glad to repay for any expenses.
What? You want me to mail you my copy? I don't remember this. Why? This is very strange. I provide you links to Thayer's online which does not match your edition word for word. Why is this not sufficient for yo u to realize what editors have done with his work?
Look, words have various shades of meaning in usage. It does not matter what an authority has to say about it, this is fact. The word "end" in English takes on various meanings. In like manner, Greek is not much different. "Telos" takes on various shades of meaning, even meaning tax in some contexts. We use context and common sense to understand the nuance the author intends to convey to us. You claimed that "telos" always and only means "end of state [of being] or an action,' end or termination ONLY." Just the fact that the word sometimes means tax should clue you in that something is a little wrong with this statement. You want to claim it is Thayer's statement and not yours, fine, but I sure would like to find that in Thayer's reference so I can show others how contradictory Thayer is. It sure would be a good reason for me not to use his lexicon.
David Miller wrote:
>> Thayer does say, "the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose."
>> Therefore, either you are misunderstanding him or quoting him
>> out of context for your own "end" (pun intended). :-)
JD wrote:
> Yes, Thayer does say this as he discusses
> I Tim 1:5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, the copy of Thayer that I referenced for you with that link apparently stripped out this context. Nevertheless, what does it matter? If Thayer says this concerning 1 Tim. 1:5, how can he then turn around and say, "The word always means 'end of a state [of being] or an action,' end or termination ONLY." It sure seems to me that these extreme words "ALWAYS" and "ONLY" are your insertions that you are trying to pass off as Thayer.
JD wrote:
> If you are being honest, here, then you are putting
> too much st ock on your Internet sources.
> The long and the short of it is this ---- I am
> quoting Thayer and you are not.
I don't know what you are quoting for sure because you have not given me enough reference to check it out. I'm not going to make a trip to the library to try and find Zondervan's edition without a more specific reference, such as page numbers and enough text to more readily find your quote. I'm planning to preach Thursday at the university, so if you ever decide to reference your source better, I might make that trip to the library and check it out. Otherwise, I consider this discussion a waste of time.
JD wrote:
> Perhaps Lance can find a copy of Thayer, published
> by Baker. I would be more than happy to purchase
> the book.
Have you ever considered the library?
If you want to buy my copy, I might consider selling it to you, if I can find time to wra p it up for you. I don't value my copy very much, and I don't know why you would value Thayer so much. Following is a quote from the Publisher's introduction (Baker Book House):
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy."
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.
> You have not read Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon
> [on "telos" ] or you would have encountered my quotation
> with the 14th word of his definition !!!!
Our editions are either not the same, or you have changed the wording in your quotation, John. I'm not going to get into this all over again with you. If you think I am dishonest, there is not much I can do about that, but it will hurt you to think evil of me.
JD wrote:
> In the past, you claimed to have a copy of Thayer in
> your library by Baker Publishing Company.
Yes, I do. I also have an electronic version in e-sword which apparently is condensed. You can get a free copy of it at www.e-sword.net if you like.
Here is another link to the definition in Thayer's Lexicon:
http://www.biblecentre.net/nt/greek/thayer/v2/2-Index.html
I don't see the "14th word of his definition" there, whatever that means. You really should try to use standard means of reference. Talk to Bill Taylor about it. He should be able to help you.
JD wrote:
> I had asked you to copy the definition you claimed was
> from that book , a definition that was counter to the
> Thayer's publication I have. You conveniently left off
> the discussion and went to fight the whirlwind, or something
> of that nature.
I'm sorry, JD, but as I remember it, the definition was several pages long, as you well know. I don't have time to transcribe books for you, and besides, my intent in this forum is not to fight over what some dead man wrote many years ago. I don't even consider Thayer to be the best authority on Greek. At the time he wrote, the papyri had not been well studied. The Greek of the New Testament was thought to be unique, kind of a secret Bible language. I find Bauer et. al. to provide a better lexicon, along with going to one of Bauer's favorite references, Moulton and Milligan, "Vocabulary of the Greek Testament."
JD wrote:
> I do not believe that your Baker edition is different
> in content (speaking of Thayer's wording) from my
> Zondervan edition -- not one word will be different.
> I gave you my address and mentioned that I would
> be glad to repay for any expenses.
What? You want me to mail you my copy? I don't remember this. Why? This is very strange. I provide you links to Thayer's online which does not match your edition word for word. Why is this not sufficient for yo u to realize what editors have done with his work?
Look, words have various shades of meaning in usage. It does not matter what an authority has to say about it, this is fact. The word "end" in English takes on various meanings. In like manner, Greek is not much different. "Telos" takes on various shades of meaning, even meaning tax in some contexts. We use context and common sense to understand the nuance the author intends to convey to us. You claimed that "telos" always and only means "end of state [of being] or an action,' end or termination ONLY." Just the fact that the word sometimes means tax should clue you in that something is a little wrong with this statement. You want to claim it is Thayer's statement and not yours, fine, but I sure would like to find that in Thayer's reference so I can show others how contradictory Thayer is. It sure would be a good reason for me not to use his lexicon.
David Miller wrote:
>> Thayer does say, "the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose."
>> Therefore, either you are misunderstanding him or quoting him
>> out of context for your own "end" (pun intended). :-)
JD wrote:
> Yes, Thayer does say this as he discusses
> I Tim 1:5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, the copy of Thayer that I referenced for you with that link apparently stripped out this context. Nevertheless, what does it matter? If Thayer says this concerning 1 Tim. 1:5, how can he then turn around and say, "The word always means 'end of a state [of being] or an action,' end or termination ONLY." It sure seems to me that these extreme words "ALWAYS" and "ONLY" are your insertions that you are trying to pass off as Thayer.
JD wrote:
> If you are being honest, here, then you are putting
> too much st ock on your Internet sources.
> The long and the short of it is this ---- I am
> quoting Thayer and you are not.
I don't know what you are quoting for sure because you have not given me enough reference to check it out. I'm not going to make a trip to the library to try and find Zondervan's edition without a more specific reference, such as page numbers and enough text to more readily find your quote. I'm planning to preach Thursday at the university, so if you ever decide to reference your source better, I might make that trip to the library and check it out. Otherwise, I consider this discussion a waste of time.
JD wrote:
> Perhaps Lance can find a copy of Thayer, published
> by Baker. I would be more than happy to purchase
> the book.
Have you ever considered the library?
If you want to buy my copy, I might consider selling it to you, if I can find time to wra p it up for you. I don't value my copy very much, and I don't know why you would value Thayer so much. Following is a quote from the Publisher's introduction (Baker Book House):
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy."
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.
