This error is being removed from this list because David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel. Although an argument can be made that it is still referring to a time before the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the fact remains that the Bible calls David "a man after God's own heart" after the events of II Samuel, effectively refuting this error. This error will eventually be removed from this list, after I believe those who are interested in the list have had ample opportunity to review the material.
Okay, several comments to make here. Sorry, no time for complete sentences.
Ferbie: Howdy! Welcome to the discussion. Your a-n-t-e-c-e-d-e-n-t P.S. was a hoot!
Rafael: I'm going to follow your invitation and get the quote from RHST.At this point, I think it's an error of interpretation, but I may change my li'l ole mind after more specific investigation.
And regarding Error #1, I disagree. Wierwille explicitly states in PFAL that David was not a man after God's own heart until after the correction of Nathan was received.
The pertinent passage from pages 87 & 88 reads as follows:
quote:At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well I am sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Then it says in the Word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. He was not after God's own heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in line, David was a man after God's own heart.
Seems to me the context clearly indicates that VP was saying that David was not called a man after God's own heart in the chronology of the Scriptures until after this incident.
Peace
JerryB
PS. I still haven't had time to reconsider the figure of speech involved in VP's statement about eternal life, but I'll try to give it some time tonight.
Actually, VP's statement about a relative pronoun referring to its nearest antecedent noun was in the context of verse 8, not verse 11. From Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, page 172
quote:The words “to one” in verse 8 arc one word in Greek, h? which is the dative case of the relative pronoun hos; being in the dative case this word h?can be translated either “to one” or “for one,” and from the context h?should be translated “for one.”
“One” is a relative pronoun and is used interchangeably with the word “that.” A relative pronoun
refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent, Therefore, using the noun in place of the pronoun, the
verse would read, “for that [meaning the profit].”
So, the point is moot. The pronoun, antecedent rule has nothing to do with VP's interpretation of verse 11.
Let's take another look at the Eternal life quote, shall we? Before we do though, I'd like to say one thing. I think this is one of the biggest paradoxes of the class material. One would think that the Scritpures regarding salvation are so simple, so clear that this would be one of the easiest subjects to study. Quite the contrary. In the original PFAL Review project we got bogged down discussing the meaning of the terms "new birth" and incorruptible seed before I took my 'leave of absence'. Both of the related threads here, Steve Lortz' "Even Deeper Doo-doo" thread and this'n here, have gotten bogged down in seemingly endless discussions and debates relating to aspects of salvation.
This is quite a surprising and interesting development. One would think we all agree on what it means to be saved, how one receives eternal life and what it is, but it seems the more we discuss it, the farther apart we go. I think part of the reason for this is we are under the misconception that the Scriptures present a clear and unequivocal doctrine on salvation. In fact, VP said something to that effect in the class. The way is so plain that even a fool couldn't err therein.(or something like that) Yet when you look long and hard at what the Bible actually says about eternal life, you will find that it is far from plain. In fact, the phrase itself is not clearly defined in Scripture. Only by associating it with related terms like "salvation" "Kingdom of Heaven" can we begin to get a specific idea of exactly what eternal life is.
And it is my considered opinion, as real scholars are fond of saying, after having studied these terms and doctrines for the last 6 months or so, that the Bible does not present a harmonious truth about what eternal life is, and how it is received. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile all the verses about eternal life with each other no matter how I look at it. The closest I can come to a unilateral teaching is by throwing out at least two major books of Scripture. I haven't decided to propose such a radical approach. I'm just stating how serious these contradictions are and how challenging the solution is. I wish I could say I'd toiled long and prayed fervently and God had shown me the answer, but alas that ain't the case; at least not yet.
Wasn't I supposed to be posting something from PFAL somewhere in here? Oh yeah, the eternal life question. VP says eternal life wasn't available before Pentecost and Rafael proposed the possibility that his use of the phrase in that statement is a figure of speech. Well, as you may have already surmised, I don't think an answer to the underlying question is going to be that simple. But I do think Mr. Olmeda has a valid point about how VP used it here.
The context here is not eternal life in general, but the "new birth" specifically (sorry Steve). His main point is that no one could have been born again before Pentecost. The use of the term "eternal life" in the last sentence seems almost an afterthought.
quote:Jesus Christ came to make the new birth available. Some people believe that the apostles were born again while Jesus was here; but if the apostles could have been born again while Jesus was on earth, Jesus Christ wouldn’t have needed to die upon Calvary’s cross; God wouldn’t have needed to give the holy spirit. The problem with many Biblical teachers is that they do not consider the fact that one cannot have something until it is available, and salvation was not available until Pentecost. No one, absolutely no one, was born again until the day of Pentecost. Everyone until that
time was just body and soul, without eternal life.
The phrase "without eternal life" is used as a synonym for not born again. Wierwille was equating eternal life with being born again. From what we've seen from the Gospels, I'd say on the surface that this is an actual error. But, I think what he did here was use the phrease "eternal life" as a synonym for "holy spirit". What he meant literaly is, Everyone until that time was just body and soul, without holy spirit.
So, I think that, if we're going to excuse this as an interpretational erro based on a figurative usage of "eternal life" we have to decide if the literal meaning is an actual error or not. In other words, is it true that before Penetecost, everyone was just body and soul.
The simple answer is NO. John the Baptist was born with holy spirit upon him. Jesus received the spirit without measure and he put holy spirit upon the Apostles. Likewise every prophet in the time between Abraham and Christ had holy spirit upon them.
But if we further excuse VP's use of the phrase "just body and soul" and read into it his distinction between conditional holy spirit upon people and unconditional holy spirit in people, we are back to the land of figures of speech and interpretational error. (ain't this fun? :-))
I think it all comes down to how much leeway we're going to afford VP in deciding how well he expressed what we think he believed.
I know it's hard to let this one go, but the fact is, we have to stick with what is actually written:
The incident with Bathsheba/Uriah is recorded, then it says in the word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. Taking a very loose meaning of "then," we will find that expression, albeit ALL THE WAY OVER in Acts 13. You'll note that the verse in Acts 13 makes no reference to Uriah and Bathsheba. Therefore, granting VPW as much leeway as possible, the verse in Acts 13 is a reference to the whole quality of David's life, both before and after the incident.
Wierwille never claims that the reference to David as "a man after God's own heart" is not used before the Bathsheba incident. He only claims that it IS used AFTER that incident. And it is.
I'm amused, however, that the resolution of this error was achieved by reading the Bible, not by "mastering" PFAL. But that particular statement in PFAL does not prove the book ain't God-breathed.
I remain confident that out of the remaining 32 errors we've identified, the majority are actual errors. If PFAL is God-breathed, not one error will stand. Yeh right.
As for the eternal life debate: I think you just made it abundantly clear that it is interpretational.
The statement about the "nearest antecedent noun" in Wierwille's books does not need to be made in reference to any particular verse in order for the error to be an actual error. The statement itself is the error, regardless of what verse/interpretation it is used to support.
You must have an earlier edition of RTHST. In my book, the reference is on p. 143.
"A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent."
I don't know what a "relative pronoun" is. What does a "relative pronoun" relate to? Is there a difference between a "relative" pronoun and a plain old ordinary pronoun? I have no idea. This is the kind of term that gives Wierwillites the wiggle room to claim these errors are not errors at all.
I'm doing a little reading on it right now, not enough to lead me to any solid conclusion. It seems that Wierwille is claiming that the word "one" is a relative pronoun. It's not. A relative pronoun would be a word like "who, whom, whomever, which, whichever, etc."
However, I do not know if the word "one" is a relative pronoun in Greek. The research continues. And with that, good night.
Turns out the Greek word can be either a relative or demonstrative pronoun according to Strongs. Which it is in this particular case, I am uncertain. According to the dictionary, a relative pronoun refers to an antecedent, but an antecedent is a word, phrase or clause. If a word, it may or may not be a noun. On that basis, VP’s statement defining the action of a relative pronoun is incorrect. The result of any application of an incorrect rule is suspect to my way of thinking. Changing the word “one” to “that” of verse 8 also makes it sound more like a thing, as opposed to a person, which a lot of people believe. That is probably what he was trying to accomplish in part. For me, I definitely want to spend some time re-evaluating these verses on my own.
In answer to your question, Rafael, a plain old pronoun would be such as “he” or “she.” A relative pronoun “introduces a relative clause and has reference to an antecedent.” Trust me, it’s much easier to understand from the dictionary where it also gives examples. But another question is how do relative pronouns function in Greek….?
Thanks for taking the time to look that up, Xixar.
It's my belief that the verse in Acts 13 refers to David at the time of his selection as King, and not a summary of his whole life. It is my belief that at no time after the Bathsheba/Uriah incident is David ever referred to as a man after God's own heart, and that the Acts record does not contradict this belief.
Nonetheless, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I am striking the error because one could conceivably argue that when Wierwille wrote "Then it says in the Word of God," he was thinking of Acts 13. That position cannot be disproven.
Relative Pronouns
Thanks for the input. Like I wrote last night, I did a little bit of reading into what a relative pronoun is. I'm hesitant to include this as an actual error until we shore it up a little. Zix, while you posit a reasonable disproof, I would be more inclined to accept an actual sentence from the Bible (with the original languages consulted) or from Wierwille's written works themselves. Any quote in which Wierwille employs a relative pronoun that does not refer back to the nearest noun as its antecedent would establish the error, best as I can see.
The relative pronoun in that case is part of a clause, "whomsoever I send." I'm not sure. I DO mean to a be a pain in the butt, but only to verify that this is an actual error.
I don't know any Greek, so I can't help you there. I think that what I have posted certainly refutes Wierwille's contention as it relates to English, though.
Not so. "Whomsoever I send" qualifies as a clause. That being the case, "whomsoever" is not a freestanding "relative pronoun." The pronoun is now "whomsoever I send," which defines itself. It may no longer be a relative pronoun, and thus not subject to Wierwille's definition.
Further, if it is correct in Greek, but incorrect in English, we can't very well hold Wierwille accountable for a translator's error. The counterargument is too simple: the Word of God got it right, the translator got it wrong.
That's why a case of Wierwille himself making the error would be so much more useful. No room for a translator's error.
If Ferbies' definition of a relative pronoun is correct, then the use of "whomsoever" in John 13:20 doesn't fit because it doesn't refer to an antecedent noun in the sentence or context. I'm checking with my Dad on this. He's a professor of English Lit and a Pulitzer nominee. (Not that I'm bragging or anything :)-->)
quote:As for the eternal life debate: I think you just made it abundantly clear that it is interpretational.
When Wierwille writes, "A relative pronoun referst to the nearest noun as its antecedent," he is talking about how to read the Word of God. It matters not that Zixar can construct a sentence that defies this principle. It only matters that God does not.
Therefore, to establish the error, we must find examples of Wierwille contradicting the principle in plain English, or the Bible contradicting it in its original language.
I don't really do Greek, but the word profit in 1 Corinthians 12:7 is a verb, not a noun. It seems whoever would defend an idea that VP knew what he was talking about is going to have to try to sell the verb as a gerund.
*****
From my downloaded copy of the Online Bible with Strong's numbers:
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given (5743) to every man to profit withal (5723).
4851 sumphero soom-fer'-o
from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT-9:69,1252; v
AV-be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17
1) to bear or bring together
2) to bear together or at the same time
2a) to carry with others
2b) to collect or contribute in order to help
2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient
5723 Tense-Present See 5774
Voice-Active See 5784
Mood - Participle See 5796
Count-2549
[This message was edited by Cynic on April 04, 2003 at 20:57.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Raf
ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!!
I'm REMOVING error number 1 from the list!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Um, why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This error is being removed from this list because David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel. Although an argument can be made that it is still referring to a time before the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, the fact remains that the Bible calls David "a man after God's own heart" after the events of II Samuel, effectively refuting this error. This error will eventually be removed from this list, after I believe those who are interested in the list have had ample opportunity to review the material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Okay, several comments to make here. Sorry, no time for complete sentences.
Ferbie: Howdy! Welcome to the discussion. Your a-n-t-e-c-e-d-e-n-t P.S. was a hoot!
Rafael: I'm going to follow your invitation and get the quote from RHST.At this point, I think it's an error of interpretation, but I may change my li'l ole mind after more specific investigation.
And regarding Error #1, I disagree. Wierwille explicitly states in PFAL that David was not a man after God's own heart until after the correction of Nathan was received.
The pertinent passage from pages 87 & 88 reads as follows:
Seems to me the context clearly indicates that VP was saying that David was not called a man after God's own heart in the chronology of the Scriptures until after this incident.
Peace
JerryB
PS. I still haven't had time to reconsider the figure of speech involved in VP's statement about eternal life, but I'll try to give it some time tonight.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Actually, VP's statement about a relative pronoun referring to its nearest antecedent noun was in the context of verse 8, not verse 11. From Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, page 172
So, the point is moot. The pronoun, antecedent rule has nothing to do with VP's interpretation of verse 11.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Let's take another look at the Eternal life quote, shall we? Before we do though, I'd like to say one thing. I think this is one of the biggest paradoxes of the class material. One would think that the Scritpures regarding salvation are so simple, so clear that this would be one of the easiest subjects to study. Quite the contrary. In the original PFAL Review project we got bogged down discussing the meaning of the terms "new birth" and incorruptible seed before I took my 'leave of absence'. Both of the related threads here, Steve Lortz' "Even Deeper Doo-doo" thread and this'n here, have gotten bogged down in seemingly endless discussions and debates relating to aspects of salvation.
This is quite a surprising and interesting development. One would think we all agree on what it means to be saved, how one receives eternal life and what it is, but it seems the more we discuss it, the farther apart we go. I think part of the reason for this is we are under the misconception that the Scriptures present a clear and unequivocal doctrine on salvation. In fact, VP said something to that effect in the class. The way is so plain that even a fool couldn't err therein.(or something like that) Yet when you look long and hard at what the Bible actually says about eternal life, you will find that it is far from plain. In fact, the phrase itself is not clearly defined in Scripture. Only by associating it with related terms like "salvation" "Kingdom of Heaven" can we begin to get a specific idea of exactly what eternal life is.
And it is my considered opinion, as real scholars are fond of saying, after having studied these terms and doctrines for the last 6 months or so, that the Bible does not present a harmonious truth about what eternal life is, and how it is received. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile all the verses about eternal life with each other no matter how I look at it. The closest I can come to a unilateral teaching is by throwing out at least two major books of Scripture. I haven't decided to propose such a radical approach. I'm just stating how serious these contradictions are and how challenging the solution is. I wish I could say I'd toiled long and prayed fervently and God had shown me the answer, but alas that ain't the case; at least not yet.
Wasn't I supposed to be posting something from PFAL somewhere in here? Oh yeah, the eternal life question. VP says eternal life wasn't available before Pentecost and Rafael proposed the possibility that his use of the phrase in that statement is a figure of speech. Well, as you may have already surmised, I don't think an answer to the underlying question is going to be that simple. But I do think Mr. Olmeda has a valid point about how VP used it here.
The context here is not eternal life in general, but the "new birth" specifically (sorry Steve). His main point is that no one could have been born again before Pentecost. The use of the term "eternal life" in the last sentence seems almost an afterthought.
The phrase "without eternal life" is used as a synonym for not born again. Wierwille was equating eternal life with being born again. From what we've seen from the Gospels, I'd say on the surface that this is an actual error. But, I think what he did here was use the phrease "eternal life" as a synonym for "holy spirit". What he meant literaly is, Everyone until that time was just body and soul, without holy spirit.
So, I think that, if we're going to excuse this as an interpretational erro based on a figurative usage of "eternal life" we have to decide if the literal meaning is an actual error or not. In other words, is it true that before Penetecost, everyone was just body and soul.
The simple answer is NO. John the Baptist was born with holy spirit upon him. Jesus received the spirit without measure and he put holy spirit upon the Apostles. Likewise every prophet in the time between Abraham and Christ had holy spirit upon them.
But if we further excuse VP's use of the phrase "just body and soul" and read into it his distinction between conditional holy spirit upon people and unconditional holy spirit in people, we are back to the land of figures of speech and interpretational error. (ain't this fun? :-))
I think it all comes down to how much leeway we're going to afford VP in deciding how well he expressed what we think he believed.
Thanks for "listening"
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Regarding David:
I know it's hard to let this one go, but the fact is, we have to stick with what is actually written:
The incident with Bathsheba/Uriah is recorded, then it says in the word of God that David was a man after God's own heart. Taking a very loose meaning of "then," we will find that expression, albeit ALL THE WAY OVER in Acts 13. You'll note that the verse in Acts 13 makes no reference to Uriah and Bathsheba. Therefore, granting VPW as much leeway as possible, the verse in Acts 13 is a reference to the whole quality of David's life, both before and after the incident.
Wierwille never claims that the reference to David as "a man after God's own heart" is not used before the Bathsheba incident. He only claims that it IS used AFTER that incident. And it is.
I'm amused, however, that the resolution of this error was achieved by reading the Bible, not by "mastering" PFAL. But that particular statement in PFAL does not prove the book ain't God-breathed.
I remain confident that out of the remaining 32 errors we've identified, the majority are actual errors. If PFAL is God-breathed, not one error will stand. Yeh right.
As for the eternal life debate: I think you just made it abundantly clear that it is interpretational.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The statement about the "nearest antecedent noun" in Wierwille's books does not need to be made in reference to any particular verse in order for the error to be an actual error. The statement itself is the error, regardless of what verse/interpretation it is used to support.
You must have an earlier edition of RTHST. In my book, the reference is on p. 143.
"A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent."
I don't know what a "relative pronoun" is. What does a "relative pronoun" relate to? Is there a difference between a "relative" pronoun and a plain old ordinary pronoun? I have no idea. This is the kind of term that gives Wierwillites the wiggle room to claim these errors are not errors at all.
I'm doing a little reading on it right now, not enough to lead me to any solid conclusion. It seems that Wierwille is claiming that the word "one" is a relative pronoun. It's not. A relative pronoun would be a word like "who, whom, whomever, which, whichever, etc."
However, I do not know if the word "one" is a relative pronoun in Greek. The research continues. And with that, good night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Weeeeelllll....
If you're trying to stretch interpretation so
that even the slightest wiggle-room is enough
to let vpw off the hook (which is a legit
position), then, yes, this would be enough of
an excuse to drop Error 1.
You want my opinion, though...
We can make a MUCH stronger case that the
Acts verse in no way addressed his point.
My take on the matter is that if vpw was right
and Acts "proved" it, it was by accident.
Otherwise, why not just cite the verse in
Acts? Heck, why not just toss it on the
verse-list for that session and let reviewers
look at it then?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to run.
The sun's coming up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael:
False. Consider the statement:
"Jack wondered who spilled the milk."
The relative pronoun "who" does not refer to the nearest noun, "Jack".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ferbie
“For to one….”
Turns out the Greek word can be either a relative or demonstrative pronoun according to Strongs. Which it is in this particular case, I am uncertain. According to the dictionary, a relative pronoun refers to an antecedent, but an antecedent is a word, phrase or clause. If a word, it may or may not be a noun. On that basis, VP’s statement defining the action of a relative pronoun is incorrect. The result of any application of an incorrect rule is suspect to my way of thinking. Changing the word “one” to “that” of verse 8 also makes it sound more like a thing, as opposed to a person, which a lot of people believe. That is probably what he was trying to accomplish in part. For me, I definitely want to spend some time re-evaluating these verses on my own.
In answer to your question, Rafael, a plain old pronoun would be such as “he” or “she.” A relative pronoun “introduces a relative clause and has reference to an antecedent.” Trust me, it’s much easier to understand from the dictionary where it also gives examples. But another question is how do relative pronouns function in Greek….?
Thanks for taking the time to look that up, Xixar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A MAn After God's Own Heart:
It's my belief that the verse in Acts 13 refers to David at the time of his selection as King, and not a summary of his whole life. It is my belief that at no time after the Bathsheba/Uriah incident is David ever referred to as a man after God's own heart, and that the Acts record does not contradict this belief.
Nonetheless, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I am striking the error because one could conceivably argue that when Wierwille wrote "Then it says in the Word of God," he was thinking of Acts 13. That position cannot be disproven.
Relative Pronouns
Thanks for the input. Like I wrote last night, I did a little bit of reading into what a relative pronoun is. I'm hesitant to include this as an actual error until we shore it up a little. Zix, while you posit a reasonable disproof, I would be more inclined to accept an actual sentence from the Bible (with the original languages consulted) or from Wierwille's written works themselves. Any quote in which Wierwille employs a relative pronoun that does not refer back to the nearest noun as its antecedent would establish the error, best as I can see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Raf: Howzabout John 13:20, then?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
The relative pronoun "whomsoever" has no antecedent in this sentence. None of the anteceding pronouns are represented by it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not sure.
The relative pronoun in that case is part of a clause, "whomsoever I send." I'm not sure. I DO mean to a be a pain in the butt, but only to verify that this is an actual error.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I don't know any Greek, so I can't help you there. I think that what I have posted certainly refutes Wierwille's contention as it relates to English, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not so. "Whomsoever I send" qualifies as a clause. That being the case, "whomsoever" is not a freestanding "relative pronoun." The pronoun is now "whomsoever I send," which defines itself. It may no longer be a relative pronoun, and thus not subject to Wierwille's definition.
Further, if it is correct in Greek, but incorrect in English, we can't very well hold Wierwille accountable for a translator's error. The counterargument is too simple: the Word of God got it right, the translator got it wrong.
That's why a case of Wierwille himself making the error would be so much more useful. No room for a translator's error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
If Ferbies' definition of a relative pronoun is correct, then the use of "whomsoever" in John 13:20 doesn't fit because it doesn't refer to an antecedent noun in the sentence or context. I'm checking with my Dad on this. He's a professor of English Lit and a Pulitzer nominee. (Not that I'm bragging or anything
:)-->)
Yeppirs!
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How about running the sentence past your dad:
"A relative pronoun refers to the nearest noun as its antecedent."
True or false? I'm no expert in grammar, but I'd be interested in the opinion of a grammar expert.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I called my Dad. He's going to check the verse and get back with me. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Never mind.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm trying to be a pain in the butt, remember:
When Wierwille writes, "A relative pronoun referst to the nearest noun as its antecedent," he is talking about how to read the Word of God. It matters not that Zixar can construct a sentence that defies this principle. It only matters that God does not.
Therefore, to establish the error, we must find examples of Wierwille contradicting the principle in plain English, or the Bible contradicting it in its original language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Zixar,
Your attempted counterexamples have not contained a relative pronoun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I don't really do Greek, but the word profit in 1 Corinthians 12:7 is a verb, not a noun. It seems whoever would defend an idea that VP knew what he was talking about is going to have to try to sell the verb as a gerund.
*****
From my downloaded copy of the Online Bible with Strong's numbers:
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given (5743) to every man to profit withal (5723).
4851 sumphero soom-fer'-o
from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT-9:69,1252; v
AV-be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17
1) to bear or bring together
2) to bear together or at the same time
2a) to carry with others
2b) to collect or contribute in order to help
2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient
5723 Tense-Present See 5774
Voice-Active See 5784
Mood - Participle See 5796
Count-2549
[This message was edited by Cynic on April 04, 2003 at 20:57.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I do see that the NASB and NIV use a noun rendering for the Greek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.