Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

ὁ Λόγος

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, it's not meaningless, I pointed you to the meaning.

    Well you can keep deceiving yourself -- for no one uses that expression. Pride coupled with ignorance are a bad combination.

    The Word and the Life, per Word commentary.
    Can't be both. The postcedent can either be "the Word of life" (τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , if τῆς ζωῆς is taken as an objective genitive) or it must be "the Word" (τοῦ Λόγου), if the expression is taken as an epexegetical genitive.


    I (and the New American Commentary) am following the evident meaning in the context.
    But you are not addressing the grammar.

    But the use of the masculine article shows that John considers "what was from the beginning" to be personal.
    No, the use of the masculine article shows that this is an anaphoric reference to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in verse 1. Your grammatical ignorance is profound. It seems to me that you are not interested in the truth of what the apostle wrote but rather have taken refuge in self-deception in order to hold on to your 4th century doctrine.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
      Can't be both. The postcedent can either be "the Word of life" (τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , if τῆς ζωῆς is taken as an objective genitive) or it must be "the Word" (τοῦ Λόγου), if the expression is taken as an epexegetical genitive.
      Or it can be broader than a single word, and include both the Word of life (v. 1) and the Life (v. 2).

      But you are not addressing the grammar.
      Well then, take it up with the New American Commentary?

      Source: New American Commentary

      In v. 5 this Johannine idea is completed as the Life/Light-giver continues to shine (notice the present tense) into the darkness.

      © Copyright Original Source



      No, the use of the masculine article shows that this is an anaphoric reference to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in verse 1. Your grammatical ignorance is profound. It seems to me that you are not interested in the truth of what the apostle wrote but rather have taken refuge in self-deception in order to hold on to your 4th century doctrine.
      But Bruce would say otherwise: "... and if it is maintained that, despite the neuter gender of the relative pronoun, He is the one who is said to have been 'from the beginning', an analogy to this phrase could also be found in chapter 2, where mention is made of God or Christ as 'him who is from the beginning' (verses 13,14)." (The Epistles of John).

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        ( A)Or it can be broader than a single word, and include both the Word of life (v. 1) and the Life (v. 2).


        Well then, take it up with the New American Commentary?

        Source: New American Commentary

        In v. 5 this Johannine idea is completed as the Life/Light-giver continues to shine (notice the present tense) into the darkness.

        © Copyright Original Source




        (B)But Bruce would say otherwise: "... and if it is maintained that, despite the neuter gender of the relative pronoun, He is the one who is said to have been 'from the beginning', an analogy to this phrase could also be found in chapter 2, where mention is made of God or Christ as 'him who is from the beginning' (verses 13,14)." (The Epistles of John).

        Blessings,
        Lee
        ( A) The antecedent can either be “the Word of Life” or “the Word.” It cannot be “the Word” and “the Life” or just “the Life.”

        (B) τοῦ Λόγου ( the Word, and not “Jesus”) is said to be “from the beginning .” It was not a “he” at this time, as shown by the neuter pronoun.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Unitarian101 View Post
          ( A) The antecedent can either be “the Word of Life” or “the Word.” It cannot be “the Word” and “the Life” or just “the Life.”

          (B) τοῦ Λόγου ( the Word, and not “Jesus”) is said to be “from the beginning .” It was not a “he” at this time, as shown by the neuter pronoun.
          Well, I disagree. Bruce disagrees, the commentaries disagree--so maybe we'll have to leave it at that.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I disagree. Bruce disagrees, the commentaries disagree--so maybe we'll have to leave it at that.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            Only Bruce's commentary makes that "argument" (and I use the word lightly), so I don't know what other commentaries you are alluding to on this score.

            Bruce is spitefully contradicting the apostle John. He realizes that the apostle uses the neuter relative pronoun in 1 John 1:1, yet he stubbornly insists that "despite the neuter gender of the pronoun" the pre-flesh Logos in 1 John 1:1 is a "he," a "person" because in 1 John 2:14 the masculine form τὸν apparently means the Logos is a person. But that is ungrammatical nonsense. The article τὸν is masculine only because it is attached to an anaphor (τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) which points back τοῦ Λόγου , a masculine noun. Notice however that a neuter pronoun is used to refer to τοῦ Λόγου here (multiple times!), thereby displaying by ad sensum construction that τοῦ Λόγου here is a something and not a someone.

            ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν Πατέρα. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.
            points to

            ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,—
            both are masculine substantives, hence the masculine article τὸν. But notice the neuter pronouns (bold above) -- 4 of them in the same verse. Almost seems as though the apostle was desperate to bring this across to his readers.

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X