Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines
This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The real 1st John 5:7
Collapse
X
-
The father['s] name is one specific Logos in John's gospel. And it is the son in 1 John 1. But they are different Logoi.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 02:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Reece View PostWhat word emphasized by John is God's name?
Quite an understatement that; but so what?Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 03:53 PM.
Comment
-
It seems I have found some interesting. There is an old 1859 printed version of the greek new testament by J N Jager which has exactly the same [version of the] verse, and it would seem based on Schrivener's research that 193 manuscripts don't have the textus receptus version of the verse which he was looking for. I think there is ample evidence to think Schrivener was sloppy and didn't know everything.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 04-05-2014, 08:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostA general breakdown of versions
ο πατηρ και ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (Complutensian Polyglot)
ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (average Textus Receptus)
πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον (the original greek)(see also Von Soden's apparatus)
Please cite a chapter and verse from the Epistles of John in which a definitive article does not accompany the term πατήρ as is the case in what you term (the original greek)
Thank you.
RonC
Comment
-
2Jn_1:3 ἔσται Shall Be G2071 V-FXI-3S μεθ' With G3326 PREP ἡμῶν Us G2257 P-1GP χάρις Grace, G5485 N-NSF ἔλεος Mercy, G1656 N-NSM εἰρήνη Peace, G1515 N-NSF παρὰ From G3844 PREP θεοῦ God The G2316 N-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM καὶ And G2532 CONJ παρὰ From The G3844 PREP Κυρίου Lord G2962 N-GSM Ἰησοῦ Jesus G2424 N-GSM Χριστοῦ Christ, G5547 N-GSM τοῦ The G3588 T-GSM υἱοῦ Son G5207 N-GSM τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM ἐν In G1722 PREP ἀληθείᾳ Truth G225 N-DSF καὶ And G2532 CONJ ἀγάπῃ Love. G26 N-DSF
This is the second time where John in an epistle uses the greek "definite" article before the greek cognate of father, actually pronounced fathrush though spelled πατρος. This info would have little to do with syntax though, since it doesn't tell you anything if you can't decipher what you are reading. Even saying that John deemphasizes who the father is with the article doesn't guarantee someone will not make a copying mistake based on John's habits. That question was more interesting than I thought.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 04-13-2014, 04:23 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post2Jn_1:3 ἔσται Shall Be G2071 V-FXI-3S μεθ' With G3326 PREP ἡμῶν Us G2257 P-1GP χάρις Grace, G5485 N-NSF ἔλεος Mercy, G1656 N-NSM εἰρήνη Peace, G1515 N-NSF παρὰ From G3844 PREP θεοῦ God The G2316 N-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM καὶ And G2532 CONJ παρὰ From The G3844 PREP Κυρίου Lord G2962 N-GSM Ἰησοῦ Jesus G2424 N-GSM Χριστοῦ Christ, G5547 N-GSM τοῦ The G3588 T-GSM υἱοῦ Son G5207 N-GSM τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM ἐν In G1722 PREP ἀληθείᾳ Truth G225 N-DSF καὶ And G2532 CONJ ἀγάπῃ Love. G26 N-DSF
This is the second time where John in an epistle uses the greek "definite" article before the greek cognate of father, actually pronounced fathrush though spelled πατρος. This info would have little to do with syntax though, since it doesn't tell you anything if you can't decipher what you are reading. Even saying that John deemphasizes who the father is with the article doesn't guarantee someone will not make a copying mistake based on John's habits. That question was more interesting than I thought.
Best,
RonC
Comment
-
I mean the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater". I tried to jam to many facts into that post. But there is also where John uses the article to obscure at the end of the verse.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 04-18-2014, 02:53 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostI mean the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater". I tried to jam to many facts into that post. But there is also where John uses the article to obscure at the end of the verse.
In this case, can you cite the other verse in Epistles of John which you are referring to which you say is "the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater".
Have a joyous Easter!
Best,
RonC
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostI already did. The first time is 1 John 5:7. And the second is 2 John 1:3.
There is no instance in the Epistles of John which one can cite where John uses use the term "pater" without a "definite" article... The contention that the noun phrase θεοῦ πατρός (apposition of a type if you prefer) somehow supports the grammatical contention regarding the singular noun "pater" in this offered version of the "original Greek" does not stand up to scrutiny. The noun phrase structure has its own specific protocols and precepts...
It is hard to assert that in one instance (and one open to question) and only one instance in the entirety of the epistles the writer makes a change such as this... the standards for proving an anomaly such as this are rather stringent as they should be.
Best,
RonC
Comment
-
Originally posted by RonC View PostThank you for clarifying... but it is a bit problematic to use one's contention as to what the original Greek was to support one's conclusion as to what the Greek should be altered to read...
There is no instance in the Epistles of John which one can cite where John uses use the term "pater" without a "definite" article... The contention that the noun phrase θεοῦ πατρός (apposition of a type if you prefer) somehow supports the grammatical contention regarding the singular noun "pater" in this offered version of the "original Greek" does not stand up to scrutiny. The noun phrase structure has its own specific protocols and precepts...
It is hard to assert that in one instance (and one open to question) and only one instance in the entirety of the epistles the writer makes a change such as this... the standards for proving an anomaly such as this are rather stringent as they should be.
Best,
RonC
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostBut it is irrelevent how many times John uses πατρος without the article in textual criticism. More facsimiles need to be checked.
"irrelevant" is hyperbole I think... however you are correct that more evidence needs to examined... in that regard, my next question would be to cite examples (examples that of course are relevant to this verse) from other writings of verses in which the author uses use the singular term "pater" without a "definite" article. What exactly would you cite in that regard?
Best,
RonC
Comment
-
Originally posted by RonC View PostHi OmniS!
"irrelevant" is hyperbole I think... however you are correct that more evidence needs to examined... in that regard, my next question would be to cite examples (examples that of course are relevant to this verse) from other writings of verses in which the author uses use the singular term "pater" without a "definite" article. What exactly would you cite in that regard?
Best,
RonC
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment