Or as I tell my Russian relatives "Russian (Greek) grammar is governed by inflections. English grammar is governed by sentence position."
-
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!
The Greek in John 14:2--Mansions? Rooms? Dwelling Places? Homes?
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
Legacy nominative and accusative also exists in English with pronouns, right?
He touched it. I touched him.
If someone said "Him touched it," it would be broken incorrect English but most everyone would understand that the speaker meant "he". So as a native American speaker, I would say "him" and "he" have the exact same meaning.
So this is basically what happens in Greek?
Come to my college, where everyone, men and women, has to learn Greek!
The meaning doesn't change whether it is nominative or accusative. For reference, think of the same thing in English: "My abode (nominative) is in Tokyo. I'm going home to my abode (accusative)."
Unlike Greek, English is mostly uninflected, but there are some inflected words, such as "he" (nominative) and "him" (accusative).
Thank you.
@GoodTidings , your spin about nominative and accusative nouns is pure rubbish. Be advised
i wonder if other US languages might present less problems in linguistics?
For example, Native American Cherokee, or Ebonics are quite different expressive and inflective. The problem being I don’t know of anything that wasn’t first a “standard English” then placed into another US language. I’ve seen both rendering John 3:16 only in this manner.
Wouldn’t it be remarkable to have a Native American student of the languages provide a truthful work in the home language of The people?
Just for comparison:
Here is an Eubonic word list: Ebonics : Here is the complete list.
Here is a “linguistic” discussion: What is Ebonics (African American English)? | Linguistic Society of America
And here is a Stanford university professor’s thinking: Ebonics Notes and Discussion
The question then becomes, should the Bible be translated into this “non standard English” and would it be (related to the discussion of Greek inflections on the posts) actually a stronger rendering reflecting more the originals?
You linguists may find it fun to translate John 3:16 into Ebonics.
Cherokee and Hawaii both have a version taken primarily from English, but I don’t think from the closer original texts.
Bible gateway gives this Hawaii Pidgin version: 16 “God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.“
For example, Native American Cherokee, or Ebonics are quite different expressive and inflective. The problem being I don’t know of anything that wasn’t first a “standard English” then placed into another US language. I’ve seen both rendering John 3:16 only in this manner.
Wouldn’t it be remarkable to have a Native American student of the languages provide a truthful work in the home language of The people?
Just for comparison:
Here is an Eubonic word list: Ebonics : Here is the complete list.
Here is a “linguistic” discussion: What is Ebonics (African American English)? | Linguistic Society of America
And here is a Stanford university professor’s thinking: Ebonics Notes and Discussion
The question then becomes, should the Bible be translated into this “non standard English” and would it be (related to the discussion of Greek inflections on the posts) actually a stronger rendering reflecting more the originals?
You linguists may find it fun to translate John 3:16 into Ebonics.
Cherokee and Hawaii both have a version taken primarily from English, but I don’t think from the closer original texts.
Bible gateway gives this Hawaii Pidgin version: 16 “God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.“
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
O.K., makes you think. I had never seen the physical elements brought into consideration. Threw me for a loop.
"..the nuance between how it is used in v. 2 vs. how it I used in v. 23.." mentioned by GoodTidings is intriguing.
John 14:23" "we will come unto him, and make our abode with him", i.e., and live with him, permanently, is a Spiritual Presence of The Divine Nature WITHIN the believer, whereas, the external mansion 'place', spoken of as a noun, is referenced more like an Architectural Metaphor, similar to, "Ephesians 2:21; In Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in Him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for God in His Spirit".
John 14:23 'abode' being where God would come to Live, Permanently, INTERNALLY;
with John 4:2 'mansion' being an EXTERNAL sanctuary, refuge, building, temple, encampment, like the Presence of Believers, in Temporary assemblies, during The Church Age (inner-Advent) Making their Gatherings a PLACE for God to Live, the Mansions are a Place for Saints to Live, in the Sinless Presence of God.
...
( Although, strictly, specifically this Architectural Metaphor in Ephesians 2:21, called 'a dwelling place' is not an EXTERNAL sanctuary, refuge, building, temple, encampment,
but "the whole building" are individual believers, who have Professed and Received Jesus as their Savior, and are organized into a congregation that gathers as an assembly to Worship God, with the entrance into that specific assembly being Baptism,
"is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (as one of Jesus' churches, such as the seven mentioned in Revelation).
"22 And in Him you too are being built together (those individuals are being edified, or 'built', in exactly the same way Jesus meant when He said, "Upon this Rock" (Himself) "I Build" (I Have Built and Organized by The Authority of God and Am Teaching and Will Continue to Edify and Build) "My church)" (which is His Indication that He Will Continue to Teach The church assemblies He Organizes and Authorises).
.
Just a caution. But in no way a criticism.
Do not consider the earthly church (temple of people) is found in heaven as a church. We are presented to the Father as the Bride, and there is no temple in that abode the Lord is preparing.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The comparing of texts is the job of the followers of Jesus. By checking, you found this specific word to be carried into those texts. That is what we need.
However, the texts used and referenced have been shown to be tampered with and intentionally altered, with numerous omissions and more often than not, involving The Doctrine of Jesus Christ.
The 'Jehovah Witnesses' have eventually drifted these 'texts' right into their own version of some book, for some Anti-Christ reason.
The WEB, to be specific, using the ASV.
The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus texts, used for the NIV, ESN,& NASB quoted, disagree with each other over three thousand times in The Four Gospels and we are looking in one of The Four Gospels, John.
InTheLight calls this an "off the topic comment" and you question why it would be relevant.
This is how these spurious texts and none-translations full of errors and omissions is relative to the Thread: The initial posting from InTheLight states, "Greek scholars, what do you think is the proper translation and why?"
Show me how dependence on and usage of currupted manuscripts is related to the designation of "Greek scholars", and how that could possibly be off topic.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
"...Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...", is an interesting parallel to 'mansions', in this Thread. The next verse references what you mentioned, although, I do not know if you are concerned or interested in the Bible Teaching, of which you cautioned me.
"the earthly church (temple of people)" referred to in Ephesians 2:21 are specific individuals, referred to as a Corporate Body, that have been "called out" and who assemble together: "the whole building" are individual believers, who have Professed and Received Jesus as their Savior, and are organized into a congregation that gathers as an assembly to Worship God, with the entrance into that specific assembly being Baptism,
"is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (as one of Jesus' churches, such as the seven mentioned in Revelation).
An assembly Organised, Brought together, in a Corporate body to Worship is a "called out assembly" and are one of The Churches that Jesus Built. John was a man sent from God to Baptise and Jesus referred to John's Baptism as having The Authority of God.
The 'temple' is spoken of to mean different things, however, these Individuals who have followed Jesus in Baptism, by The Authority of God and those saints in the Old Testament who assembled for The Worship of God According to God's Instructions and Authority, compose "The church (called out assembly) of the Firstborn" (Jesus).
In Heaven, in Jesus' Father's House there Will Be "The church of The Firstborn (which is Jesus' Faithful Bride of The Old and New Testament Followers of God in Worship, AS GOD HAS INSTRUCTED) and "the general assembly".
Jesus is The Temple, yes.
The "early church", as you mentioned, is the only churches that have always existed, since Jesus Founded them, during His Earthly Ministry and Promised to "be with" them, until the end of the (church Age = inner-Advent).
During The inner-Advent, between Jesus' First Advent and Ascension to Heaven and Jesus Second Advent, at His Return, those children of God who have accepted Jesus as their Savior are Adopted into The Family of God (all saints who have ever been) and while alive on Earth are in The Kingdom of The Son.
Of those Individuals, who follow The Lord's Command, throughout The New Testament, to "be Baptised", and are like Jesus, Who walked 40 miles to be Baptised by the one who had The Authority of God; they make up one of Jesus churches, again, like those specific assemblies sited in The Book of Revelation and are members of one of Jesus' churches.
Thus, all living saints, in Heaven or on Earth are God's Family,
all saints living on Earth, alive, are in The Kingdom of The Son,
all of those saints, alive on Earth, who are Baptised by The Authority of God, into The church that Jesus Built and members of one of His churches.
This shows, "The Kingdom of The Son":
Hebrews 12:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Who hath made us fit {meet} to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son;"
This shows, "The Kingdom of The Son" being Delivered into The Kingdom of The Father (Heaven, after The End, when Jesus Returns):
I Corinthians 15: 23 But every man in his own order; Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
This shows, "The Kingdom of The Son", which is The General Assembly and the Faithful Old and New Testament Bride, which are The Church of The First Born, Gathered into "The Kingdom of The Father", i.e., Heaven, after Jesus' Return:
Hebrews 12:22 "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,..."
I'll take a bit to section out your response so that my response will be less confused.
My caution was merely making aware of the "fences." Let's see how these are either ignored or kept.
John did not know of the "church." The church (gentile) was a mystery. John's baptism (of repentance) was authorized by God by the mission God purposed for John but that is not relevant to the believers. Believers are not baptized for or as a result of repentance.
John's mission from God included baptizing with water, but it was not as the Church mission because John was prior to the crucifixion, and even while in prison questioned whether the Lord was the Christ or should they look for another. Jesus pointed to the work and miracles to be examined.
It was not until the "great commission" in which baptism became integral with the believer's life change that the "death, burial and resurrection" became the principle picture of those redeemed.
There must be kept in mind the difference is not physical but Spiritual. In the OT, the folks (believers or not) gathered at a place. That place and those sacrifices were the entrance into the kingdom of God. But we have no temple made with hands, but are as we gather the temple with God in our midst. Please note that it is not the gathering that is important, but the fact that God is in the midst. (reference to the Laodicean assembled in Revelation).
It is also important that the gathering can be of various sizes, and the purpose of the gathering is to equip for the ministry.
Here is a problem. Are you suggesting that the heaven, which now is, is the place Christ is preparing and does not appear until after the final judgement of God?
If you are, that is not following the Scripture as revealed by John in the Revelation.
Perhaps you can list Scriptures where the Lord Jesus is referred to as a temple, other than when he told of the manner of His death and resurrection in terms the Jewish religious leaders could understand.
He, at that time, was comparing the transfer of worship from a building to Himself, but was not suggesting that folks would consider Him a temple but that the function of the priestly line associated with that building would be terminated.
He is also found with God in the New Heaven as the temple.
This concept is as Paul presented in 1 Corinthians. The temple is the abode of God, God is in the midst. It is not a place, but the presence of God. This is also that which Christ communicated to the woman, that the time is when one does not journey to visit with God, but God is in the gathering, in their midst despite time and place.
The Kingdom of the Son is not of this world at this time. We are (as Paul states) ambassadors of that King and kingdom.
At some point, the return of Christ will bring that kingdom to this earth to rule. Believers will make judgement and serve the Savior "face to face." But until then, we (as Paul states) see only as through a distorted and darkened glass.
To whom do you assume has the "authority of God" to baptize?
Am I correct in assuming that you do not hold to the apostolic succession. There is no Scripture support for such thinking.
The "specific assemblies sited in The Book of Revelation" are long dead. However, the example (and in Darby dispensation thinking in which the church age is divided into stages of time) continue in various churches to this day. They are warnings to every local assembly. However, they do not exist as individual assemblies in Heaven. Rather, there is one collective of all believers who will share that bride's supper prior to the return of the King of kings.
No, we are pictured as strangers, ambassadors of that Kingdom. The Kingdom that will one day come. Did not the Lord state such in that prayer He exampled to the Apostles? "Thy kingdom come..." it is future. It is not now. Standing before Pilot, the Lord said, "My kingdom is not OF this world..." His kingdom will be IN this world when He returns, but His kingdom is never OF this world.
This is true. No one is really doubting that the Father is appointing those of His choosing to be the His adopted children. As adopted, we are joint heirs, as joint heirs we are a part of the Kingdom.
Not a problem is you remember that the "then" does not have immediacy of time associated with it, but is a matter of sequence as in the sentence, "I was born, then I lived, then I died."
Just as in that short sentence, there are incidents and details that are not even alluded.
This is true, IF you also remember that such a heavenly place also passes away in that last melting of heaven and earth. Two places exist after that time. One is that "Second death" prepared for any whose name is not found in the "book of life." Later, after that judgment is revealed that place Christ stated He is preparing for the believer.
This is that New heaven and a New earth. Such a place that the foul footsteps of the enemies of God have never even seen, much less polluted by walking. They baste in the place God prepared for them. They have no place nor ever will see, nor will they ever visit that which the Lord Jesus "has prepared for them that love Him and are called according to His purpose."
In that New Heaven and New Earth, there is no temple. There is no altar in which the saints gather to worship. Rather, we are the joint heirs with Christ of that place. We are God's children, no more servants, but His who He chose to adopt and preserve as His.
My caution was merely making aware of the "fences." Let's see how these are either ignored or kept.
John did not know of the "church." The church (gentile) was a mystery. John's baptism (of repentance) was authorized by God by the mission God purposed for John but that is not relevant to the believers. Believers are not baptized for or as a result of repentance.
John's mission from God included baptizing with water, but it was not as the Church mission because John was prior to the crucifixion, and even while in prison questioned whether the Lord was the Christ or should they look for another. Jesus pointed to the work and miracles to be examined.
It was not until the "great commission" in which baptism became integral with the believer's life change that the "death, burial and resurrection" became the principle picture of those redeemed.
There must be kept in mind the difference is not physical but Spiritual. In the OT, the folks (believers or not) gathered at a place. That place and those sacrifices were the entrance into the kingdom of God. But we have no temple made with hands, but are as we gather the temple with God in our midst. Please note that it is not the gathering that is important, but the fact that God is in the midst. (reference to the Laodicean assembled in Revelation).
It is also important that the gathering can be of various sizes, and the purpose of the gathering is to equip for the ministry.
Here is a problem. Are you suggesting that the heaven, which now is, is the place Christ is preparing and does not appear until after the final judgement of God?
If you are, that is not following the Scripture as revealed by John in the Revelation.
Perhaps you can list Scriptures where the Lord Jesus is referred to as a temple, other than when he told of the manner of His death and resurrection in terms the Jewish religious leaders could understand.
He, at that time, was comparing the transfer of worship from a building to Himself, but was not suggesting that folks would consider Him a temple but that the function of the priestly line associated with that building would be terminated.
He is also found with God in the New Heaven as the temple.
This concept is as Paul presented in 1 Corinthians. The temple is the abode of God, God is in the midst. It is not a place, but the presence of God. This is also that which Christ communicated to the woman, that the time is when one does not journey to visit with God, but God is in the gathering, in their midst despite time and place.
The Kingdom of the Son is not of this world at this time. We are (as Paul states) ambassadors of that King and kingdom.
At some point, the return of Christ will bring that kingdom to this earth to rule. Believers will make judgement and serve the Savior "face to face." But until then, we (as Paul states) see only as through a distorted and darkened glass.
To whom do you assume has the "authority of God" to baptize?
Am I correct in assuming that you do not hold to the apostolic succession. There is no Scripture support for such thinking.
The "specific assemblies sited in The Book of Revelation" are long dead. However, the example (and in Darby dispensation thinking in which the church age is divided into stages of time) continue in various churches to this day. They are warnings to every local assembly. However, they do not exist as individual assemblies in Heaven. Rather, there is one collective of all believers who will share that bride's supper prior to the return of the King of kings.
No, we are pictured as strangers, ambassadors of that Kingdom. The Kingdom that will one day come. Did not the Lord state such in that prayer He exampled to the Apostles? "Thy kingdom come..." it is future. It is not now. Standing before Pilot, the Lord said, "My kingdom is not OF this world..." His kingdom will be IN this world when He returns, but His kingdom is never OF this world.
This is true. No one is really doubting that the Father is appointing those of His choosing to be the His adopted children. As adopted, we are joint heirs, as joint heirs we are a part of the Kingdom.
Not a problem is you remember that the "then" does not have immediacy of time associated with it, but is a matter of sequence as in the sentence, "I was born, then I lived, then I died."
Just as in that short sentence, there are incidents and details that are not even alluded.
This is true, IF you also remember that such a heavenly place also passes away in that last melting of heaven and earth. Two places exist after that time. One is that "Second death" prepared for any whose name is not found in the "book of life." Later, after that judgment is revealed that place Christ stated He is preparing for the believer.
This is that New heaven and a New earth. Such a place that the foul footsteps of the enemies of God have never even seen, much less polluted by walking. They baste in the place God prepared for them. They have no place nor ever will see, nor will they ever visit that which the Lord Jesus "has prepared for them that love Him and are called according to His purpose."
In that New Heaven and New Earth, there is no temple. There is no altar in which the saints gather to worship. Rather, we are the joint heirs with Christ of that place. We are God's children, no more servants, but His who He chose to adopt and preserve as His.
See Revelation 21 for details.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Just a caution. But in no way a criticism.
Do not consider the earthly church (temple of people) is found in heaven as a church. We are presented to the Father as the Bride, and there is no temple in that abode the Lord is preparing.
agedman Were you ignoring 'fences' in your comment about 'fences'?
I am going to leave this comment of yours along with all the others, above, as they are: without Scripture Reference. And that, yes, you have no interest or concern about the churches of The Lord, as presented in The Bible, or Scriptural Baptism.
I, too, have no interest in discussing either, when a Testimony Regarding "Jesus is The Savior" is missing and substituted by "the "great commission" in which baptism became integral with the believer's life change"?
Do not consider the earthly church (temple of people) is found in heaven as a church. We are presented to the Father as the Bride, and there is no temple in that abode the Lord is preparing.
agedman Were you ignoring 'fences' in your comment about 'fences'?
I am going to leave this comment of yours along with all the others, above, as they are: without Scripture Reference. And that, yes, you have no interest or concern about the churches of The Lord, as presented in The Bible, or Scriptural Baptism.
I, too, have no interest in discussing either, when a Testimony Regarding "Jesus is The Savior" is missing and substituted by "the "great commission" in which baptism became integral with the believer's life change"?
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Your Testimony is that is was, "the "great commission" in which baptism became integral with the believer's life change"?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
In direct reference to the Thread's John 14:2; "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you", 'By his "Father's house" is meant heaven; see 2 Corinthians 5:1; which is of his Father's building, where he has and will have all his family.' (Gill)
So, 'Heaven' is spoken of as a 'house' that God The Father 'Built'.
The Lord's churches are a fellowship
and partnership of believers
and believers are saved people.
"Because God So Loved the World,
that He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
that whosoever Believes in Him
should not perish,
but Have Everlasting Life"
John 3:16
"He that Believes on the Son
Has Everlasting Life:
and He that believes not the Son
Will not see Life;
but the Wrath of God Abides on him"
John 3:36
"And by Him all that Believe
are Justified from all things,
from which you could not be Justified
by the Law of Moses"
Acts 13:39;
"Therefore being Justified by Faith,
we have Peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 5:1.
When sinners repent towards God
and Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ,
their immediate duty is to be Baptized
and enter into the fellowship
of one of the churches Jesus Built
as a servant of Christ. (re: 8.2.1A THE SCRIPTURAL ORGANIZATION & A.) Members of THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH that JESUS FOUNDED. )
(John 1:33, “He [God] that sent me to baptize.”)
Since John was the first baptizer,
and since his name was “Baptist,”
he must have been the first Baptist.
If John was not the first Baptist, who was?
Jesus Christ used the name “Baptist” five times:
Matthew 11:11, 12;
"Verily I Say to you,
Among them that are born of women
there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist:
notwithstanding he that is least
in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now
the Kingdom of Heaven comes with the force of violence,
and the violent take it by force."
Matthew 17:13;
"Then the disciples understood
that He spoke to them of John the Baptist."
Luke 7:28, 33:
"For I say to you, Among those that are born of women there is not a
greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the
Kingdom of God is greater than he."
"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say, He has a demon."
Robertson comments,
“The point of the question is that the Messiah would cause no astonishment
if He were to introduce a new rite like this.
But if John is nobody in particular, why had he done it?
The question argues the novelty of John’s baptism . . .
Jesus clearly implies that John’s baptism had more than a mere human origin . . . It was, indeed, a new ordinance, equivalent to a vow, and especially different from the ceremonial washings with which the Jews were familiar.”
...
That John the Baptist was the first Christian preacher is seen in that:
he prepared the way for Jesus Christ;
John the Baptist made straight His paths;
John the Baptist pointed to Jesus Christ;
John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ;
John continued to magnify Jesus Christ;
John used the same text as Jesus Christ,
as other New Testament preachers did;
John the Baptist taught and baptized the first Christians,
and John the Baptist's ministry overlapped that of Christ.
JOHN THE BAPTIST PREPARED THE "MATERIAL" OUT of WHICH JESUS BUILT HIS CHURCHES.
THAT "MATERIAL" WERE SAVED SOULS WHO JOHN BAPTISED, by THE AUTHORITY of GOD.
(re: Did Jesus call John the First Baptist? )
BAPTIZED INT
NE BODY“For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body.
Now you are the body of Christ,
and members in particular”
[1 Corinthians 12:13, 27.].
***
Verse 27 of this quotation tells
what kind of body is meant in verse 13: the kind of which the church at Corinth was an example.
I Corinthians 1:13-17 shows what kind of baptism is meant: namely baptism in water.
In fact, there is only one kind of baptism recognized in the New Testament as an ordinance of Christ: all other so-called baptisms are figurative or symbolic, deriving their significance from this baptizing in water to declare the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and all that this means to us.
Almost all Christians recognize baptism or some substitute for it that they call baptism,
as sprinkling or pouring, as a church ordinance.
But if it is a church ordinance, then there must always have been churches to administer the ordinance.
If the church to which Jesus entrusted the ordinance passed out of existence as an institution,
then the ordinance lapsed with the church, and nowhere in the Bible is anyone authorized to start it up again.
THE CHURCHES
of THE GODHEAD BODILY, JESUS CHRIST,
were
FOUNDED and ORGANIZED by JESUS CHRIST
DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY
from the "material" of Saved souls,
who were Led by The Holy Spirit to be Baptised
by The Authority of God,
INTO AN ORGANIZED ASSEMBLY,
and is HOW JESUS BUILT:
"The House of God,
which is the church
of the Living God,
the Pillar and Ground of the Truth."
I Timothy 3:15
Gatherings on Earth are referred to as "Houses", just as God the Father's "House" of Heaven, in which are "many mansions".
"Mansions" are where God's people Will Gather to Worship God Forever, without sin.
The churches of The Lord Jesus,
in The New Testament and since that Time,
are ASSEMBLIES
of BAPTIZED BELIEVERS
by THE AUTHORITY of GOD,
of which John knew full well.
(re: 8.0.0 i: THE CHURCHES of THE GODHEAD BODILY ORGANIZED by JESUS CHRIST, “The House of God, which is the church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”)
Very true. Sorry I haven't answered this. I've had two sisters here, and been off the Internet.
Sorry I haven't answered this. I've had two sisters here, and been off the Internet.
Yes, that's approximately what happens in Greek, except that Greek is much more inflected than English. Every Greek verb (except infinitives), noun, adjective and article are inflected. Only adverbs and particles are not.
Sorry I haven't answered this. I've had two sisters here, and been off the Internet.
Ebonics (Eubonics) is actually a dialect of English, and in most cases the translators choose what is the main dialect to do their translation into, thus reaching the most people. For example, all modern Japanese versions are in Tokyo standard.
I'll have to check that out.
Interesting. There are quite a few pidgin languages around the world, often unintelligible to the average English speaker.
Sorry I haven't answered this. I've had two sisters here, and been off the Internet.
I am fully apprised of textual criticism, and have a good library on the subject. My position is Byzantine priority, and I have translated the NT into Japanese from Scrivener's TR. If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to--on another thread. On the BB it is considered rude to sidetrack someone else's thread.
This thread is not about textual criticism. It is about the word "mansion" in the KJV. There are no textual problems in any manuscript where this verse is included. Therefore, any talk about the mss and the Greek editions is out of place here. I think you are mixing up translation and preservation.
I am fully apprised of textual criticism, and have a good library on the subject. My position is Byzantine priority, and I have translated the NT into Japanese from Scrivener's TR. If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to--on another thread. On the BB it is considered rude to sidetrack someone else's thread.
Sorry I haven't answered this. I've had two sisters here, and been off the Internet.
No, the Greek cases do not change the meanings. They are important in the syntax of the language, but not the semantics.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Show me how dependence on and usage of corrupted manuscripts is related to the designation of "Greek scholars", and how that could possibly be off topic.
Show me how all Greek scholars depend on corrupted mss, and I'll admit the relevance of your posts.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Yes, the specific request would have to designate two general fields of Greek scholars, "with a dependence on and usage of corrupted manuscripts, oblivious to, and/or with a disdain for preservation, and/or whether their 'translation' qualifies as a 'translation', by even making sense,
and those designated as Greek Scholars who either dismiss mistranslations out of hand, or who are knowledgeable enough, to begin with, a translation known to be based on corrupted manuscript texts and working backward to double check the veracity of a particular word's original language preservation, or no.
Then from those two fields of Greek Scholars, what do each of you think is the proper translation of 'mansions' and why?
Note: Whether or not the translation was made from a proper text in the original language. Who cares?
That makes sense. You're right.
and those designated as Greek Scholars who either dismiss mistranslations out of hand, or who are knowledgeable enough, to begin with, a translation known to be based on corrupted manuscript texts and working backward to double check the veracity of a particular word's original language preservation, or no.
Then from those two fields of Greek Scholars, what do each of you think is the proper translation of 'mansions' and why?
Note: Whether or not the translation was made from a proper text in the original language. Who cares?
That makes sense. You're right.