Interpretation of 2 John 10

[gb93433]

What do you think about the article written by W. Hall Harris III at http://www.bible.org/author.php?author_id=17

The author W. Hall Harris III is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and is also the Project Director and General Editor for the NET Bible (New English Translation).

For over twenty-five years Hall has taught at Dallas Seminary courses in intermediate level Greek grammar and syntax, exegetical method, and various courses in the Gospel and Epistles of John. He received a Th.M. from Dallas Seminary and a Ph.D. the University of Sheffield, England.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

double post....

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Doesn't matter how many degrees the man has. If he is teaching contrary to the Word of God, his words concerning 2 John mean nothing.'

After reading the supposed exegetical interpretation of 2 John 10 by this professor, I would say he is not qualified to interpret it at all.

His explainations, 'it could be,' 'may be no more than,' and 'could simply be' indicate that the man does not know a hill of beans about the verse he is trying to explain.

And he teaches at a Bible College?

 

[gb93433]

After reading the supposed exegetical interpretation of 2 John 10 by this professor, I would say he is not qualified to interpret it at all.

His explainations, 'it could be,' 'may be no more than,' and 'could simply be' indicate that the man does not know a hill of beans about the verse he is trying to explain.

Certainly I could not imagine you ever having any doubt about any interpretation of scripture.

When I posted the reference to the article I was hoping to get some facts if anyone disagreed.

Rather than giving an emotional reaction, why not give some facts that support your viewpoint and prove the person wrong? Why don't you point out where you disagree and why? Is that too much to ask?

And he teaches at a Bible College?

He does not teach a Bible college. Actually he teaches at the same place that promotes the same theology you believe. He teaches at DTS which is the hub of dispensationalism. He teaches at the same place as Lewis Sperry Chafer once did. He teaches at the same place as Charles Ryrie. He teaches at the same place as Dan Wallace. He teaches at the same place which has trained so many dispensational professors and pastors.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When I posted the reference to the article I was hoping to get some facts if anyone disagreed.

DHK and myself both gave facts in the other thread and you refuted them. 30 pages and you still cannot admit that the house of the elect lady was not a Church, but was her home just like the Greek 'oikia' states it was.

Is there any use in going through another 30 pages seeing as your mind is made up to deny the meaning of the word 'oikia'?

 

[DHK]

What do you think about the article written by W. Hall Harris III at http://www.bible.org/author.php?author_id=17

Truthfully I think that Dr. John Gill is much more informative and more qualified to comment on the book than Harris is. But you didn't like his comments, so you chose to ignore them.

 

[trustitl]

Is there any use in going through another 30 pages seeing as your mind is made up to deny the meaning of the word 'oikia'?

Was there any use in going through the first 30 pages? :BangHead:

 

[gb93433]

Was there any use in going through the first 30 pages? :BangHead:

Think about the substance in the majority of those 30 pages.

That is the real reason why I started this thread. I was hoping that we could get some information in support of a particular position using evidence that sheds light on the background information and any other evidence surrounding the passage. Hopefully that avoids emotional opinion and limits it to documented evidence. Obviously there are those who study such things as archaeology and biblical backgrounds. If someone knows about that kind of information available I think it would be helpful for everyone.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In other words, you want everyone to agree with you when Scripture itself disagrees with you.

I understand now. I was wrong (*see note below). I thought that posting the meaning of the Greek and showing it was not a Church according to the Greek and also according to context that you (and others) would see why your stance concerning 2 John 10 was unBiblical.

* Tim (and others will be happy to see I admitted to being wrong on the Baptist Board.

 

[readmore]

I understand now. I was wrong (*see note below). I thought that posting the meaning of the Greek and showing it was not a Church according to the Greek and also according to context that you (and others) would see why your stance concerning 2 John 10 was unBiblical.

* Tim (and others will be happy to see I admitted to being wrong on the Baptist Board.

I think if you were to be truly honest with yourself, you'd realize that "admitting that your wrong" should be more of a commentary on your own error, not on the error of others.

 

[gb93433]

In other words, you want everyone to agree with you when Scripture itself disagrees with you.

I understand now. I was wrong (*see note below). I thought that posting the meaning of the Greek and showing it was not a Church according to the Greek and also according to context that you (and others) would see why your stance concerning 2 John 10 was unBiblical.

* Tim (and others will be happy to see I admitted to being wrong on the Baptist Board.

What Greek text do you read?