Search results

Actually, they're not. The scholars you reference are of days gone by (probably because their work is in the public domain). And so they do not have the advantage of the last century or more of linguistic research. As I said here: We are in the realm of grammar, not theology...

JH Thayer was a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. He also denied the inerrancy of Scripture. WE Vine was also a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. Zodhiates was also a Greek guy... who was actually Greek. He did publish a Hebrew-Greek word study Bible, but he was...

Of course I have said nothing of the sort. You're assuming I think that. Again, one does not need to publish to have or prove expertise in a particular area. But, even so, you would still have no basis to adjudicate what I say. I don't have to support facts. The word "took" is... well...

You're conflating a few things here. As you admit, you have to trust the other scholars. It's clear you don't trust me. But, I'll bet you've never asked the other scholars for their CV or bona fides. You take them as correct simply because you like what they say, and you cannot tell whether...

I'm not deflecting in the least. You simply have no way to evaluate these "scholars" to know whether they are in-line with the language and grammar itself. The only thing you can do is receive information second-hand. So, your "faith," so to speak, is simply blind. You happen to like what...

Ah yes... The inevitable ad hominem. The inevitable repeating of the error. The doubling-down on the error while focusing on "me," not the text itself. You are so sadly predictable. The published lexicon you're using is Strongs. There is a saying... "Strongs isn't so strong." You...

You've demonstrated this to be false twice already in the last few hours. The Archangel

Not all of them. Again, the issue isn't so much the translation of "led." "Took" can't mean "led" in this passage, no matter how much Van wants it to. The issue with "led" is the Hiphil stem. That adds meaning that a simple translation doesn't convey. So, as an example, you can lead your...

Let's be fair... you picked the seventh meaning because it fit your pre-conceived idea, which you again reference above. You simply don't like the claim that God compelled Abraham; so you're changing the text to fit your idea. That's what you've said (and done) twice now. Again, your...

Notice that you are using two different criteria in this example. They may disagree with my position, but there is no evidence that they disagree with what I said about the grammar. Your view of language here is quite absurd, as you're projecting your incapacities onto everyone else. One does...

This pretty much sums it up: "That view is a published view which satisfied my understanding of the context". You find the view that satisfies your a priori understanding. Thanks for stating what we all already knew. Of course, it is quite clear that you inject your understanding of the text...

Again, you don't simply get to pick which translation of a particular verb fits your pre-conceived ideas of what it should be. Hebrew doesn't work that way.... even in Qal. In Deuteronomy (in addition to many other places) we see the same root: [34] Or has any god ever attempted to go and...

You don't have to be a Jew to know Hebrew well. And, in my experience, many Jews (especially those who are non-believers in Christ) discount the grammar of the language. Historically, this has happened for millennia. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you're not understanding that two...

Actually, it doesn't. The grammar of the verse is this: God is the subject (speaking through Joshua). God takes Abraham... God leads Abraham. Again, "leads" being in the Hiphil stem is emphasizing the action of the subject, not the direct object (Abraham, or "him," being the direct object...

Wrong. In Joshua 24:3, both words "Took" and "Led" are used. Here it is in Hebrew: וָאֶקַּח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וָאֶרֶב אֶת־זַרְעוֹ וָאֶתֶּן־לוֹ אֶת־יִצְחָק׃ It does read right-to-left. The red is "took;" the blue is...

Clearly, you do not understand the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is, essentially, what has been decided to be correct, and it is usually applied to Christian doctrine. So, Nicea laid-out what was "Orthodox" as far as Jesus' divinity. He was "begotten, not made." This...

So, you deny the Chalcedonian definition of Christology. Ok. That, by definition, is heresy--just as it would be heresy to affirm the Arian position rejected by Nicea in AD 325. So, which of the other options that Chalcedon rejected do you affirm? The Archangel

This would be helpful for you all to read: The Basics of Chalcedonian Christology | Tabletalk Blessings, The Archangel

This is so close and yet so far. On the positive side, you state "the created order is sufficient to cause someone to be without excuse." OK. But, you use the word "effective" as if there is a chance people can find salvation in the created order--without the special revelation of scripture...

A bit full of yourself, aren't you? From what I've read of your work nothing of what you claim here is true, and your statements of your own abilities are laughably false. The Archangel