Featured A passage in which many struggle

Can you even cite Wallace's magnum opus entitled Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics? Do you even have it? Have you ever translated parts of the New Testament on your own?

If not, you are saying that Wallace says something based solely on the NET translation of the Bible.

If you can't hack the Greek, don't try.

The Archangel

 

One of you guys has to be wrong.

 

Is this what I said? No. So just a continuing stream of misinformation. I said our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. This comes from Romans 5:2. I say we are saved by grace through faith. Now to be saved through faith means the faith exists before being saved, so it is like going through a door to enter a room. Our faith provides the door into God bestowing grace upon us, or not. God can search our heart and decide not to credit it as righteousness. So it is God and God alone who saves us. Our faith provides nothing of merit, it is a filthy rag.

Calvinism must misrepresent what scripture says or it becomes clear Calvinism is bogus.

 

Did anyone see where he disagreed with my write-up? Nope. This is the so-called non-denial denial. The change the subject to Van, and shuck and jive till the cows come home.

 

No, Mr. Greek-poser, it's called calling your bluff.

The Archangel

 

Ouch...toasted again Van !!! like the old timex watch commercial....it takes a licking, but it keeps on ticking...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_fKppH8B0g

 

Knowing Greek does not make a person correct. Greek scholars disagree among themselves all the time, so knowing Greek proves nothing.

 

1) Did Daniel B. Wallace approve of translating "en + dative" as showing instrumentality in 1 Peter 1:1-2? Yes. (Impersonal agency)

2) Was this disputed? No

Basically, the Calvinists must shuck and jive and question my qualifications and character, rather than address the obvious truth, en + dative is used to show "by agency of" or by implication instrumentality many times in the NT. They tried to pretend because it is not used but rarely, for personal agency, this somehow meant it was not used for impersonal agency where persons are used as instruments.

They are toast once someone cites Wallace.

 

Don't worry Winman, I have got this, I am just giving them rope.

 

Folks, do you see this is yet another non-denial denial, a shift of topic away from how "en" is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:1-2?

For the record, the Greek-poser is the one who is systematically misrepresenting Dan Wallace. Who will that turn out to be, the guy who says he knows nothing of Greek or the guy who presents himself as the expert.

Time will tell. How many more empty evasions will be posted before the truth is revealed. Stand by.

 

I read what you posted on 2T2:13 back in 2011. Don't recall the thread but it was very good. Ran across it when I googled something.

 

"The guy who says he knows nothing of Greek?" That would be you, right? Then why do you refer to the Greek at all, since, by your own admission, you know nothing of Greek?

You simply have no facility with the language and you have no clue how to work in it.

Winman is right: There are differences of opinion when it comes to Greek exegesis. But, you wouldn't even be able to evaluate Wallace's argument or my own--since you are totally ignorant of the Greek.

Furthermore, your citation of the NET Bible, while saying that Wallace agrees with you, is nothing more than elaborate rouse, a red-herring, an argument from silence. You have no clue and cannot articulate why ἐν + dative means anything, much less what you say it means. Wallace hasn't articulated an argument, as far as I know, on the passage to advocate for your position.

So, you're putting words in Wallace's mouth, which is a dishonesty that would have you expelled from nearly any academic institution.

You simply cannot interact with the text and so you have to try to discredit me through ad hominem arguments. You can't discredit my explanation of the Greek. Others might be able to show where I am mistaken, but you can't. Neither can you evaluate the arguments of any of my opponents--because you know NO Greek.

It is ridiculous to try to discuss these things with you as your level of ignorance and foolishness approaches criminal levels.

The Archangel

 

Thanks Percho.

Here's the thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71217

The Archangel

 

I believe 1 Peter 1:2 says the exact same thing as 2 T 2:13 in that Jesus received the Holy Spirit from the Father, Who then in the name of Jesus shed the same upon us thus holying (setting us aside) unto belief (faith) of truth. Or as Peter put it; Unto (into) obedience.

To become believing ones.

 

I would tend to agree with you. However the Greek of 1 Peter 1:1-2 is notoriously difficult in many ways. Getting to Peter's mind on the issue isn't the easiest thing in the world to do.

The Archangel

 

Can anyone say shuck and jive, and dance, dance away from the topic?

How many more Calvinists, in addition to Agedman, Archangel, and Iconoclast, wants to come up the 13 steps and claim 2 Thessalonians 2;13 is mistranslated by the NASB, NIV, NET, HCSB, NKJV, ESV, according to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. Lets go on record.

Calling all Calvinists, or self proclaimed experts in Greek, how say you?

 

Pot. Kettle. Oh, nevermind......

You seem to have no concept that we're not questioning the "translation." Instead we (or me, as the case may be) are questioning the conclusion you draw from the translation.

You are asking: What does the text say. This is good, we all should do this. You can only go as deep as a translation, but you've got to start somewhere.

However, you never ask "What does this mean?" You assume what it means based on a translation. Again, that's the only facility you have at your limited disposal.

So, we should expect you to get things like this wrong from time to time. The problem is that you dismiss, out-of-hand, those who know more than you, all the while assuming you're right without being able to articulate why you might be right and others might be wrong. Laughable.

The Archangel

 

Notice now how Archangel is saying just because the NET translated the phrase to show by agency of now does not mean Dr. Wallace agrees with translating en as "through"? Good Golly, Miss Molly. LOL.

Calling all "experts" when something is done through something, that means by the agency of or by implication, instrumentality of something, whether personal or impersonal.

Let the shuck and jive begin, the "I never said that" and I didn't imply any such thing, dance of the shuck and jive Calvinists.

 

The next claim, being set apart by the Spirit, cannot be understood to mean being set apart by the Spirit because I do not understand the underlying Greek. Talk about arrogance, Calling all Christians who came to faith through a translation, Archangel says you did not understand or grasp the gospel of Christ.

As predicted, once they get to the end of the rope, they seek refuge in absurdity. This is followed by yet another claim to mind reading. No kidding. Folks, this is all they have, when confronted with truth, they are, to use Iconoclast's term, toast.

 

You simply have no clue about what you are talking. And, by your own admission: You know no Greek.

I'm done with you, you're not worth the keystrokes.

The Archangel