Galatians 3:7..."of" or "to"?

[doogieduff]

How should Galations 2:7 actually be translated?

I have little education in the greek, but I understand that the genitive case is translated by placing an "of" in front of the noun. Which would result in this translation:

Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcised was to Peter.

Is this the case?

[John Reece]

Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95143#post95143)
doogieduff:

How should Galations 2:7 actually be translated?

I have little education in the greek, but I understand that the genitive case is translated by placing an "of" in front of the noun. Which would result in this translation:

Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcised was to Peter.

Is this the case?

No. The genitive objective is rightly rendered "to" in Galatians 2:7.

[Solly]

Did you ever like pulling a tin of beans from the bottom of the pile as a child John?

Such a little word, such a loud noise of a house of cards crashing to the ground.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95164#post95164)
Solly:

Did you ever like pulling a tin of beans from the bottom of the pile as a child John?

Such a little word, such a loud noise of a house of cards crashing to the ground.

:cheers:

:thumb:

:smile:

[GrayPilgrim]

doogieduff,

The Genitive can be done that way. However, Jaltus' and my Greek prof told us we were never to translate with "of", and here is why:

A genetive can be subjective, a genetive can be objective, a genetive can be epexegetical, a genetive can be partative...(there are dozens of uses of the genetive thus a simple "of" doesn't quite explain what is going on)

GP

[Jaltus]

How should Galations 2:7 actually be translated?

I have little education in the greek, but I understand that the genitive case is translated by placing an "of" in front of the noun. Which would result in this translation:

Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcised was to Peter.

Is this the case?

It is true that in first year Greek the teacher will tell you that the genetive case is the "of" case just as the dative case is the "to" case. However, that is just a first year trick. Once you get the feeling for the genetive, you will quickly realize how inadequate both of those "definitions" really are. There are many ways to use the genetive, and only 1 of them has "of" in front of it (possession, which should be changed into a possessive noun, though sometimes the undefined genetive also needs "of").

The better translation would be:


Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

The Greek puts the stress on the people as the difference, whereas the gospel is governed by the same set of grammatical rules. You see, there is only one word for the gospel in the verse, and thus it literally reads:

Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when seeing that I was entrusted the gospel for the uncircumcised, as Peter the circumcised,

This would be the best translation yet.

alla tounantion idonteV oti pepisteumai to euaggelion thV akrobustiaV kaqwV PetroV thV peritomhV

[John Reece]

Thanks, Jaltus :thumb: .

[Solly]

Thanks Jaltus.

How often we get fooled by that Greek trick of managing to differentiate between two things in the same sentance structure, just as with the use of kai at times.

Does Carson have anything on this in his "exegetical errors"?

[GrayPilgrim]

I just started reading that yesterday, I'm still in the first chapter, so I'll let you know.

[Jaltus]

No, Carson does not mention this.

[Solly]

Well get down the corridor and ask him why; I want an appendix to paste into my copy by friday!! :tongue:

[Socrates]

Hmm, the King Jimmy is terrible with its genitives, being far too eager to render them with "of". E.g. the strange "Primitive Baptists" have a few weird ideas based on these passages, relying on the Jacobean "faith of Christ":

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

However, modern translators know more about genitives than the mainly Anglo-Catholic crowd who translated the KJV, and correctly translate the phrase "faith in Christ".

[Solly]

Today @ 04:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95285#post95285)
Socrates:

Hmm, the King Jimmy is terrible with its genitives, being far too eager to render them with "of". E.g. the strange "Primitive Baptists" have a few weird ideas based on these passages, relying on the Jacobean "faith of Christ":



However, modern translators know more about genitives than the mainly Anglo-Catholic crowd who translated the KJV, and correctly translate the phrase "faith in Christ".

Ahem, but even I am up on the academic study of the last twenty years that has been churning over pistou Christou. I believe Hays is for the rendering "of christ". Jaltus and Arminian might fill us in more here.

[Jaltus]

I have not researched that one.

[Solly]

N T Wright is one:

I don't agree with everything Wright has to say on justifiction, by any stretch. For example, I am baffled by his denial of any imputation of Christ's righteousness. I think he is correct to understand the "righteousness of God" terminology as refering to God's own covenant faithfulness. But there is still plenty of room to talk about imputation, after having said all that. Wright himself makes a big deal out of what he calls corporate christology (which we would call union with Christ), and also insists on reading the "pistis christou" languague as refering to Christ's own faithfulness by which we are justified; all this he sets within a pretty standard view of the atonement. If that is not classic imputation categories then I don't know what is. However, I do think his attempt to ground his reading of Paul within OT covenant theology on the one hand, and the Jewish and Hellenistic world of the day, on the other hand is salutary.

http://hornes.org/presbytermark/archives/000585.htm

[doogieduff]

Today @ 10:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95304#post95304)
Solly:



Ahem, but even I am up on the academic study of the last twenty years that has been churning over pistou Christou. I believe Hays is for the rendering "of christ". Jaltus and Arminian might fill us in more here.


I actually agree here and this is what I have been taught.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95218#post95218)
Jaltus:



It is true that in first year Greek the teacher will tell you that the genetive case is the "of" case just as the dative case is the "to" case. However, that is just a first year trick. Once you get the feeling for the genetive, you will quickly realize how inadequate both of those "definitions" really are. There are many ways to use the genetive, and only 1 of them has "of" in front of it (possession, which should be changed into a possessive noun, though sometimes the undefined genetive also needs "of").

The better translation would be:


Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

The Greek puts the stress on the people as the difference, whereas the gospel is governed by the same set of grammatical rules. You see, there is only one word for the gospel in the verse, and thus it literally reads:

Galations 2:7
7 But on the contrary, when seeing that I was entrusted the gospel for the uncircumcised, as Peter the circumcised,

This would be the best translation yet.

alla tounantion idonteV oti pepisteumai to euaggelion thV akrobustiaV kaqwV PetroV thV peritomhV

Thanks for this. If this translation is correct, then it would still seem feasible to me that it's talking about two different gospels. The gospel "for" the circumcision and the gospel "for" the uncircumcision sounds like two gospels to me. If it was going to be translated "to" I would question two gospels, but the "for" actually makes me more comfortable about my belief of two different gospels.

[Jaltus]

It should not.

My entire point was that there is one gospel going to two groups, which is what the text says.

Peter takes "the gospel" to the circumcised, Paul takes "the gospel" to the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two different people groups. That is what the text says, it does not support a two gospel reading, sorry.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95720#post95720)
Jaltus:

It should not.

My entire point was that there is one gospel going to two groups, which is what the text says.

Peter takes "the gospel" to the circumcised, Paul takes "the gospel" to the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two different people groups. That is what the text says, it does not support a two gospel reading, sorry.

An exegesis clearly shows two gospels, but as for the verse...why can't "THE gospel FOR the circumcision" and "THE gospel FOR the uncircumcision" be two different gospels? If it was translated "to" then definitely it would seem to be the same gospel, but this translation could very well be talking about two different gospels, but then an exeget solves that for us.

BTW, you all wanted me to believe that Acts 2:38 should be translated "because of" making it the only time out of 1,773 times it is translated that in the NT. Yet, one case, noted by you Jaltus, the genitive could have an "of" in front of it, and that's possession. Well, I see possession here most definitely, and why won't you guys ever remain consistent? It can be only one of out 1,773 times and you're all ok with that, yet in this case it's not cool?

John Reece, I find it very interesting that you would thumbs up Jaltus' response considering he explained how you were WRONG (you say "to", he says "for"), yet you seemed to act like you were so smart and knew what you were talking about in the dispensationalism thread, and call me "a beginning greek student."

[Socrates]

Solly ( www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=95309#post95309 ):N T Wright is one:The theologian and historian Dr Noel Weeks is likewise concerned about how Wright denies the Reformation doctrines like justification by faith alone and the propitiatory death of Christ for sins. The problem is that Wright takes Sanders as Gospel, uses him to interpret Paul, and ignores other parts of the NT which expressly talk about propitiation (1 John 2:2).

I also agree with inputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, but would argue from 2 Corinthians 5:21, and realise that this is what is being referred to in Romans 4:3 (citing Genesis 15:6), "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

The Primitive Baptists were using "faith of Christ" to deduce things peculiar to them. It's unsound to base something on an old translation produced by people with a tendency to render genitives naively as "of".

[Socrates]

Jaltus:Peter takes "the gospel" to the circumcised, Paul takes "the gospel" to the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two different people groups. That is what the text says, it does not support a two gospel reading, sorry. I agree :thumb: doogieduff's apparent hyper-dispensationalist heterodoxy contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that everyone is saved the same way, by grace through faith in THE gospel, e.g. Galatians 3:28. Since there is only THE gospel, any alleged second gospel would come under Paul's condemnation as
'a different gospel' (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6).

[John Reece]

doogieduff

John Reece, I find it very interesting that you would thumbs up Jaltus' response considering he explained how you were WRONG (you say "to", he says "for"), yet you seemed to act like you were so smart and knew what you were talking about in the dispensationalism thread, and call me "a beginning greek student."

For the record, two points:

1. I did not “thumbs up Jaltus' response” for rendering “for” rather than “to”, there being no practical difference between those prepositions in terms of the fact that the text indicates that one gospel was sent to two different people groups by means of two different Apostles.

2. I did NOT call doogieduff "a beginning greek student." I only quoted doogieduff's own words in responding to his use of that term. Here is the verbatim exchange, which was made in posts # 36 and # 37 on the “Should We Be Circumcised” thread in the Dispensationalistm101 Forum:

John Reece:
Only by imposing upon the scriptures a strange presupposition can they be distorted to mean what they do not say: that is, that Peter and Paul preached two different gospels. The text quoted above indicates that Peter and Paul agreed to a division of labor only in terms of to whom they preached, not what they preached.

Doogiefuff:
Actually I disagree. We need to check the greek for this one. How should Galations 2:7 be translated? Any beginning greek student knows, the genitive case is translated by placing an "of" in front of the genitive noun. According to this principle, Galations 2:7 should be translated,
seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter has been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision.
The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision are two different gospels. Leaving the verse and its greek out of the picture, a strong exegete will also clearly show two different gospels.

John Reece:
“Any beginning Greek student” should be aware of the limitations of his knowledge.
“A strong exegete” would recognize that της ακροβυστιας and της περιτομης are genitive objectives and are thus to rendered into English “to the uncircumcised” and “to the circumcised”.
The phrase “any beginning Greek student” originated with doogieduff. My use of the phrase was never anything other than a verbatim quote of his own words.

Edited to replace "pronouns" with "prepositions" :doh: .

[Act9_12Out]

Yesterday @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95752#post95752)
Socrates:

Jaltus:Peter takes "the gospel" to the circumcised, Paul takes "the gospel" to the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two different people groups. That is what the text says, it does not support a two gospel reading, sorry. I agree :thumb: doogieduff's apparent hyper-dispensationalist heterodoxy contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that everyone is saved the same way, by grace through faith in THE gospel, e.g. Galatians 3:28. Since there is only THE gospel, any alleged second gospel would come under Paul's condemnation as
'a different gospel' (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6).

"The gospel" is literally the "good news." Are you saying that God's good news for man has never changed? Paul calls the gospel that he preaches "my gospel."

Romans 16
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

What is the "my gospel" that Paul preaches? Paul's "my gospel" is the gospel of the uncircumcision. What makes up Paul's "my gospel?" I'll let him answer...

1 Corinthians 15
15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
15:3
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
15:4
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Please show me any other Apostle who preaches belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for salvation. Secondly, please show me that Noah, Abram / Abraham, Moses, etc... ever believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be saved. In fact, the "good news" that was given to Abram in Genesis 15 was simply, "Count the stars if you are able... So shall your descendants be." When Abram believed God that his seed would be like the stars of the sky, he was accounted righteousness. Abram never believed in the death, burial and resurrection Christ. How could he?

--Jeremy

[Jaltus]

Acts 2

22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
25 David said about him: "'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."'
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."


Acts 10

34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism
35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.
36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.
37 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached--
38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree,
40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-- by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.
43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

I Peter 1

7 These have come so that your faith-- of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire-- may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,
9 for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.


Sure looks like Peter preached that salvation was found in Christ alone, not in baptism.

[Act9_12Out]

Jaltus,

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Peter is speaking of the reality of the resurrection. Show me where Peter preaches it for salvation... You said,

Peter takes "the gospel" to the circumcised, Paul takes "the gospel" to the uncircumcised.

Same gospel, two different people groups. That is what the text says, it does not support a two gospel reading, sorry.

Maybe we should first establish what you think this one universal gospel is. What is the gospel that Peter and Paul supposedly preached together in harmony?

The point of this discussion is to address the viewpoint put forth by others that "the gospel has never changed," or that there is "only one true gospel..." I would assume that everyone here agrees that "the gospel" for today is belief in the death, burial and resurrection. Show me that this "gospel by which we are saved," is true throughout all time. In fact, let's look at Peter's response to Christ when he first hears about the resurrection...

Matthew 16
16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
16:22
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

Don't you think if God had required belief in the death, burial and resurrection throughout all time, Peter would have known about it? Next you say,

Sure looks like Peter preached that salvation was found in Christ alone, not in baptism.

Really? The Bible disagrees with you...

Acts 10
10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
10:35
But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
10:36
The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all--
10:37
that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

Did you "fear God and do works of righteousness" to be accepted by God Jaltus? What was the baptism that John preached? That's right... "A baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Let see what else Peter has to say about baptism... Let's pick up where you left off...

Acts 10
10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
10:45
And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
10:47
"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

The Holy Spirit interrupted Peter's message before he could get to the "repent and be baptized" part. Why is this? Because the Body of Christ had already started with Paul's conversion (Another discussion I guess...). Peter went on with the only message he knew. He commanded them to be baptized. Why were the circumcision believers astonished? Because the gentiles received the Holy Spirit prior to being water baptized. This had never happened before! Peter has more to say on this issue...

1 Peter 3
3:21
There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter's point here is that just getting wet and washing the filth from your skin will not cut it. Peter is stating that one must be water baptized, and have the answer of a good conscience towards God. Peter is saying that circumcision believers must be water baptized for salvation... Noah was the "type" who was saved from the water.

Again, I ask, what is this universal gospel? What must man believe to be saved? If the gospel does include the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, why doesn't anyone else besides Paul preach it for salvation?

--Jeremy

[doogieduff]

Jaltus, I'm still waiting for your response to Acts 9's post above...

[doogieduff]

Cmon Jaltus! Don't make me start another "Jaltus' Exposed" thread!

[doogieduff]

Just keeping this thread "hot" waiting for Jaltus' repsonse....

[doogieduff]

Thanks Jaltus...

[bar Jonah]

Outstanding exegesis, Acts9!

Gentlemen, may I also submit something for consideration, despite the fact that I don't speak a word of Greek and freely admit it? (Actually, I'm just barely starting to learn Biblical Hebrew, instead, which is unusual for a mid-Acts.)

I wholeheartedly agree with Doogie that the "for" translation definitely allows for an interpretation of two gospels. Doesn't state it explicitly but most certainly allows it. Jaltus, you effectively rewrote Paul's words when you said that he "took" the gospel "to" the uncircumsized, while Peter "took" the gospel to the uncircumcized.

Took? No no... it says he was entrusted with it. Given it. Tasked with it. Being entrusted with it and taking it to someone are hardly synonymous.

But further, since this "for" translation allows for either one or two gospels, can we let the greater context of Galatians help us interpret this? After all, doesn't the Bible generally interpret itself?

Galatians 1 and 2 basically tell us the following:

* Someone has been preaching to the Galatians a different message than what Paul gave.
* That gospel is wrong for the Galatians.
* Paul's gospel is right for the Galatians.
* Paul had gone to see Peter and James in Jerusalem
* Paul taught abroad
* Paul went to Jerusalem again to meet with the Twelve.
* The Twelve confirmed that Paul's gospel is true, confirmed his authority
* Paul is given the gospel for the uncircumcision (Gentiles)
* Peter is given the gospel for the circumcision (Jews)
* Paul says he had to go back to Jerusalem again to rebuke Peter to his face, and the leaders of Peter's church were to be blamed for not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel in relation to the Gentiles.
* Paul says yet again that his is the gospel that is right for the Gentiles. Clarifies his gospel so there is no mistaking -- it is apart from the law.

Paul is talking on and on, throughout Galatians 1 and 2, about how his gospel is right and this other gospel is not right for the Galatians. And he keeps bringing up Peter and the Twelve in the midst of all this. Shall we believe that a teacher is going to teach English for 10 minutes, then math for 10 minutes, then English, the math... back and forth? Of course not. Paul is communicating a coherent and consistent message here.

That gospel is wrong for you. This gospel is right for you. That is Peter's job, and this is my job. I rebuked Peter for how he was dispensing the gospel in relation to the Gentiles. Here is the accurate gospel, just so you are clear.

This business of two gospels is ALL about Paul vs Peter and the Twelve. He is bringing Peter into his explanation about the difference between these two gospels. So, to look at Galatians 2:7 and claim it's referring to the same gospel is like saying:

"I am entrusted with teaching about the Constitution for the United States.... whereas Bob is entrusted with teaching the Constitution for the U.S.A."

Huh??? :huh: Paul would be entirely redundant if he were saying something like that. And really, your overall exegesis of this passage is something along the lines of this:

"You've been listening to the wrong gospel. I carry the right gospel, and you should follow this. Man, I saw this movie last week, and it was great. Anyway, I taught abroad, then came back. Then, these guys confirmed that my gospel is correct. My uncle owns an emu farm, and sells the meat to Renaissance festivals... those aren't turkey legs, folks! Anyway, my job is to teach the gospel for the uncircumcision, whereas it's Peter's job to teach the gospel for the circumcision -- of course, it's all the same message anyway. You know, I was just telling Peter that he should go ahead and buy that car he's been thinking about, but only if he can get the color he really wants. But I digress, where were we? Oh yes, this and this and this is what the gospel is about, and it's not about that and that. -- THE END."

Context is king, my brothers. Can't we all strive to allow scripture to interpet itself? If I'm wrong, I welcome correction.

[Bib Lit Major]

Doogie:

So Jaltus is to be held captive this thread? Must he answer every point and post that disagrees with him? Must he devote his life's work and energy to attemptiong to prove you wrong or else he is dishonest?

[Edit: Really, doogieduff, I have not come to the same conclusions as you have regarding Acts9 not responding to several of my posts in the Eschatology forum. This is because I realize he is a busy man, and not necessarily because he is unable to answer my points. You ought to share the same attitude with Jaltus. Jaltus, after all, is in school for his Ph.D., which probably takes up a considerable amount of his time and energy.]

[Jaltus]

Hays does have that rendering. I bumped into it when researching something else. Remind me of this when I have free time, say about August 10th or so.

Yes, seriously remind me around August 10th. I have German from now until then.