Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, it was a general comment directed to all. It seemed we were getting off topic with talk about unsubstantiated accusations and slander and the like. I didn't read closely enough to see what all it was referring to. I was encouraging all to police themselves and keep it on topic.
No, it was a general comment directed to all. It seemed we were getting off topic with talk about unsubstantiated accusations and slander and the like. I didn't read closely enough to see what all it was referring to. I was encouraging all to police themselves and keep it on topic.
Here is what the text says:
Try looking at all those seperations that you didn't see;
aCtually, punctuation was added in later. The original writings had no punctuation.
Multiple problems here. First, kai is not a funny looking almost word. It is an actual word, one of the most common words in the GNT, and not funny looking in the least. Second, it does not show a separation, but a connection. It is conjunction, usually translated "and" or "also," sometimes "even." In this text, you are dead wrong, absolutely backwarods. It is properly translated "also" and means that all of the first group are "also" in teh second group, and so forth right on down to glorification. The "kai" shows that there is no way out of this line. Once in it, you are always in it.
Ok, fair enough. However, I posted a treatment of these verses in Romans 8 and your view on Acts 13:48 approximately five posts above the above quote, and I asked you a question about Romans 3. You did not respond, and that was certainly on topic. I'm interested in your response to that treatment which appears in this post, and in your response to Acts 13:48 and the answer to my question about Romans 3.
And where did you get this information from?
It is technically called a particle; it is a word and you can look it up in teh lexicon to see what it means.
I did not reference a modern Greek meaning (although it is probably the same). I referenced BAGD, the standard lexicon for NT Greek. You can look it up yourself.
I am wrong?? All I said was that punctuation was not in the original writings. THat is indisputable. You can look at copies of the early NT Greek documents and see that there is no punctuation in them. There is not even any spacing between the words.
I didn't appeal to the quotuation marks in that. They just happened to be in the right place. The point is that the context very clearly showed who was talking.
I wouldn't talk Larry you're way out of it yourself. I don't believe you know a thing about what you are saying, but are just trying to hold up Calvinism. I have never stated that I'm an expert in the feild at all but there is one thing I do know and that is you very clearly don't know what your talking about.
I have 30 hours of Greek. I have translated about half of the NT. I translate almost weekly. I have within 10 feet of my desk the following: BAGD, Theological Dictionary of hte NT, Theological LExicon of the New Testament, New International Dictionary of New TEstament Theology, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Liddell-Scott, Friberg's Lexicon, Louw-Nida, and numerous Greek text based commentaries. In other words, I can tell you what the word means, and you missed it.
No, but being right makes me right. I told you where you can look it up. You won't even tell me where you got your information.
I can't speak for Gene's ability in Greek.
More wrong information. John is hte fourth gospel, but in the NT, the books are in the same order in Greek as they are in English. It is the OT where the order is different.
...