Study of a Prepositional Phrase

[Rippon]

Speaking Of Prepositions

Dave Black, in his Unblog, recently said some interesting things on the subject.

"Greek words normally do not have a single meaning but several, and hence may be glossed in several different ways in English...Hence rarely if ever can we say that a particular Greek lexical form 'means' this or that. Context is the final arbiter of meaning.

Rarely if ever can we determine the meaning of a passage based on a single word. That includes prepositions. Students, should you try to do this I will warn you about 'prepositional' theology.

Finally, do you recall we noted that, by the Koine Greek period, several prepositions in Greek have come to be used somewhat synonymously, examples being apo/ek and eis/en?...lexicographers have shied away from insisting on a hard and fast distinction between eis and en.

[Black referfences Daniel Wallace.] Wallace's glosses for eis include 'into,' 'toward,' 'in,' 'for,' 'throughout,' and many others."

 

[John of Japan]

Hi JOJ,
1) Unless you offer an alternate definition, the OP definition is sound.

Can you prove it? Who wrote the Wiktionary definition? Does he know koine Greek? What are his qualifications? I hope that simply because something is labeled "dictionary" you don't, ergo, consider it authoritative.

2) Saying not to try to understand God's word is without merit. Again, no alternate understanding was offered.

I did not say not to try to understand God's word. I said not to try to understand the prepositional phrase without understanding the previous Greek construction. I gave you a hint as to how you could properly understand it. Furthermore, though I'm a Greek teacher and Bible translator, you have always rejected anything I say about the NT, so I am positive you would reject any "alternate understanding" I gave. Therefore I see no point in trying to help you out here.

If anyone else asks, I'd be happy to explain.

3) The OP addresses other usages (other than with genitive) of the preposition "dia".

The writer of the OP does not know Greek and is thus not qualified to discuss the Greek prepositions. If he wishes to explain the English Bible, he would do much better.

 

[Van]

Can you prove it? Who wrote the Wiktionary definition? Does he know koine Greek? What are his qualifications? I hope that simply because something is labeled "dictionary" you don't, ergo, consider it authoritative.

One of JOJ hobby horses is to discredit lexicons other than his own. My definition was very similar to several found on line. He offered nothing authoritative that differed.

I did not say not to try to understand God's word. I said not to try to understand the prepositional phrase without understanding the previous Greek construction.

Again his fiction that word study based on English versions of exhaustive concordances, lexicons, bible dictionaries, commentaries are not worthwhile is hogwash.

I gave you a hint as to how you could properly understand it. Furthermore, though I'm a Greek teacher and Bible translator, you have always rejected anything I say about the NT,

I certainly reject absolute falsehoods like this. Did I not agree when you pointed out my error with phileo? Yes.

If anyone else asks, I'd be happy to explain.

Explain what? Your nonsense?

The writer of the OP does not know Greek and is thus not qualified to discuss the Greek prepositions. If he wishes to explain the English Bible, he would do much better.

Again JOJ simply offers yet another logical fallacy, attacking my credentials, rather than what I say. And yet again, no alternate view of the usages of "dia" has been offered. Just another "taint so" post, devoid of any actual contrary information on the subject.

 

[Van]

Dave Black, in his Unblog, recently said some interesting things on the subject.

"Greek words normally do not have a single meaning but several, and hence may be glossed in several different ways in English...Hence rarely if ever can we say that a particular Greek lexical form 'means' this or that. Context is the final arbiter of meaning.

Rarely if ever can we determine the meaning of a passage based on a single word. That includes prepositions. Students, should you try to do this I will warn you about 'prepositional' theology.

Finally, do you recall we noted that, by the Koine Greek period, several prepositions in Greek have come to be used somewhat synonymously, examples being apo/ek and eis/en?...lexicographers have shied away from insisting on a hard and fast distinction between eis and en.

[Black referfences Daniel Wallace.] Wallace's glosses for eis include 'into,' 'toward,' 'in,' 'for,' 'throughout,' and many others."

While presenting accurate information of prepositions in general, this is simply an off topic post aimed at getting something right.

1) Did I say "dia" has a range of meanings? Yes.

2) Did I say we determine which of a Greek word's possible meaning by looking at usage in context? Yes.

3) Did the post mention or describe any meaning of "dia" not addressed in the OP? Nope

 

[Van]

"Through faith" is a key phrase in scripture. Pay no attention to those who seek to avoid its study.

If you enter a room through a door, you go enter the door first, you go through the door first and you exit the door also before you enter the room. Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, etc.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Many translations go with "but" or if not.

The idea seems to be "if not "A" then not "B", which logically converts to "if "A" is valid, then "B" is valid. Thus if we are not justified by the works of the Law, then we are justified by means of Christ's faithfulness. Therefore, translating "ean mh" as "but" works well.

That "conversion" bends logic. For example, consider if "A" and "B" are statements about a quadrangle.
"A" = It's a rectangle.
"B" = It's a square.
If "A" is untrue, then "B" will always be untrue. However, if "A" is true, "B" may or may not be true.

 

[Van]

That "conversion" bends logic. For example, consider if "A" and "B" are statements about a quadrangle.
"A" = It's a rectangle.
"B" = It's a square.
If "A" is untrue, then "B" will always be untrue. However, if "A" is true, "B" may or may not be true.

You are correct, I did not mean mathematical logic, but semantic logic. When a person says "if not "A" then not "B" (the literal meaning of the construction, they are not stating a mathematical equation, they are equating the non-validly of "A" and "B". Logically, this can be understood to mean "if this is so, then that is so.

In our verse, if we are "A - not justified by the Law" then we are "B -justified by Jesus" are our "if this, then that" components. And again "but" works without all the mind boggling extraneous fly specks.

 

[John of Japan]

One of JOJ hobby horses is to discredit lexicons other than his own. My definition was very similar to several found on line. He offered nothing authoritative that differed.

Sorry, I don't have my own lexicon. I use many though. :tongue3:

I certainly reject absolute falsehoods like this. Did I not agree when you pointed out my error with phileo? Yes.

Briefly, yes, you did. Then in the rest of your thread, you ignored it and retreated to your own understanding once more.

Explain what? Your nonsense?

Yeah, I figured you'd go right into personal attacks. I have not attacked your character or personality or written any personal attacks against you. Don't want to go there.

 

[Van]

Folks, he questions my credentials but that is not an argument against the man. Yeah.

He has not said anything that differs from the OP definition of "dia."

He said I always reject his input, but then admitted I accepted it. But then he said I disregarded it? Yet another fiction, I made a stab at revising "philo" to the correct "phileo" throughout my following posts.

I did not just say your posted positions were nonsense, I addressed them and presented evidence that your views were nonsense.

1) It was nonsense to say I always reject your views.
2) It was nonsense to suggest the definition presented in the OP was unsound. As it is very much like Strong's and Thayer's renderings.
3) Here is what JOJ said was not an attack on me:

The writer of the OP does not know Greek and is thus not qualified to discuss the Greek prepositions. If he wishes to explain the English Bible, he would do much better.

 

[John of Japan]

3) Here is what JOJ said was not an attack on me:
​

Wow. Okay, so pointing out a lack of credentials is a personal attack.

Tell you what, folks, I'll question my own credentials so no one else has to.:smilewinkgrin:

I have no credentials to: fix a car, teach Hebrew or Chinese hundreds of other languages, repair an electrical problem, lecture on physics (or any other science other than linguistics), teach sociology or economics (especially not that!!!), cure or even diagnose your illness.... Hey, I'm sure I could list hundreds more!

 

[Van]

Hi JOJ, questioning a persons credentials rather than addressing the person's views is a personal attack.

"Through faith" is a key phrase in scripture. Pay no attention to those who seek to avoid its study.

If you enter a room through a door, you enter the door first, you go through the door first and you exit the door also before you enter the room. Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, before reaching the grace in which we stand. But just what is the "faith" that provides access to saving grace? Our profession of faith, no matter how flawed, or superficial? Or is it only the faith God has credited as righteousness?

Food for thought folks.

 

[Rippon]

If you enter a room through a door, you enter the door first, you go through the door first and you exit the door also before you enter the room.

"You exit the door also before you enter the room" makes no sense. The word exit means leaving. Entering means coming in.

Just thought I'd point out some basic English for you.

 

[Van]

Arguments from personal incredulity are without merit.

Please Mr. Rippon, do not strain yourself trying to explain basic English, you seem unable to comprehend that if we enter a room through a door, we went through the door before we entered the room. So simple a cave man could understand it.

Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, before reaching the grace in which we stand. But just what is the "faith" that provides access to saving grace? Our profession of faith, no matter how flawed, or superficial? Or is it only the faith God has credited as righteousness?

 

[Rippon]

you seem unable to comprehend that if we enter a room through a door, we went through the door before we entered the room.

You are a riot! Ha, Ha, Ha!

 

[The Biblicist]

We are justified by means of Christ's faithfulness

We are justified on the BASIS of Christ's faithfulness as our substitute in life and in death. His Person and work is the object of justifying faith.

Justification occurs not when we trust in Christ, because our trust might not be credited as righteousness, but if it is, our justification occurs when God puts us spiritually in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ where our sin burden is removed, and we arise in Christ holy and blameless, justified forever and ever.

We are justified at the point of faith because justifying faith is inseparable from quickening according to Paul in Ephesians 2:8. Look at the perfect tense "saved" in the periphrastic construction modified by the prepositional phrase "dia" faith.

Romans 4:5 says we are to believe on the One justifying, and that is Jesus Christ. That is the faith that God credits as righteousness.

Wrong! It is the object of that faith - his righteousenss - that is imputed to us for righteousness.

Not in Christ, dead in our sins,

You can't be "in Christ" but yet dead in sins! You can't have true justifying faith in Christ and be spiritually dead as faith is the work of God because you cannot come to Christ in faith without first being "given" by the Father and coming is the consequence of being first given.

 

[Van]

In this very abbreviated study, lets boil this all down using just one verses, Galatians 2:16.. Here is how the NASB95 renders our verse:

“ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Note that the translation indicates the idea that “through faith in Christ Jesus” is our faith toward Christ, i.e. faith in Christ. In this usage, we see that “dia” is followed by three nouns in the genitive case, faith, Jesus and Christ. Many translations render it “through faith in Jesus Christ” but the NET comes down of the side as a subjective genitive, i.e. the faith in view is Christ’s.

So if we translate “dia” as “by means of” and then translate as a subjective genitive, we get “by means of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness.” So we are justified by means of the precious blood of Christ rather than by our faith in the precious blood of Christ. But, you might say, the very verse says we are justified “by faith in Christ.” Not if we make a similar translation decision that if the preposition “ek” (out) when used to show source or origin with genitive, i.e. translated as “by,” the phrase could be translated as “by Christ’s faithfulness.” Again the idea is the source of our justification is the precious blood of Christ.

When Christ died on the cross, covered with His own blood, He became the propitiation for the whole world, and access to that grace is granted by God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. Knowing this even we have believed into Christ.

Are we justified when we profess our faith, or when God credits our faith as righteousness. Thus justification occurs when God puts us into Christ spiritually and we undergo the circumcision of Christ.

Wrong! It is the object of that faith - his righteousenss - that is imputed to us for righteousness.

Just read Romans 4:4-5 folks. The verse does not say we are credited as righteousness, it says our faith is credited as righteousness. And based on God accepting our faith in the truth, He sets us apart spiritually in Christ.

LOL, Not in Christ means not in Christ. Good grief. And when we were NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT in Christ we were dead in our sins. When we are put in Christ we are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5.

 

[Van]

Preserving Exegetical Possibilities

"A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text.

Blurring the line between translation and interpretation regularly diminishes the full exegetical potential of the text.

The real usefulness of these hybrids [Dynamic Equivalent Translations that blur the line between translation and interpretation] is paradoxically not as a translation (where they are untrustworthy as a window to the original text) but as a commentary. This is how I use them. Their virtue as commentaries is their thoroughness. There is not a single verse in the Bible that is left untouched. When I am faced with a difficult text, I often consult dynamic equivalent Bibles—not as a translation but as a gloss or commentary on a difficult passage." [Except for the bracked insertion and emphasis added by bolded words, the quotes are from Dr. Ryken's book.]

 

[Rippon]

Dr. Ryken has no background or qualifications as a translator or Bible scholar. But it is interesting that he and his son, Philip, along with James Wilhoit put out Ryken's Bible Handbook in 2005. It used the New Living Translation as its main Bible version.

 

[Van]

More logical fallacies from the one who seems to have no background or qualification in bible study, attacking not the positions but the qualifications of Dr. Ryken. Go figure.

 

[Rippon]

the one attacking the qualifications of Dr. Ryken.

How is stating the truth --that he has no qualifications as a Bible translator or Bible scholar attacking him? It is simply the truth.