“To have” is an infinitive. The verb “to do” is always used as a model for an infinitive, just as “someone” is used to refer to a person and “something” to an object. I’m quite aware that “have” and “do” are different verbs, and I’m not the one who is confused here. I happen to know what I’m talking about.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
δίδωμι
- Thread starter The Real John Milton
- Start date
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Then why do you think John 5:26 is saying that the Father gave Jesus to do something ?“To have” is an infinitive. The verb “to do” is always used as a model for an infinitive, just as “someone” is used to refer to a person and “something” to an object. I’m quite aware that “have” and “do” are different verbs,
and I’m not the one who is confused here. I happen to know what I’m talking about.
Respectfully, it's hard for me to believe that.
Sigh. “To eat pizza” has “to eat” as an infinitive and “pizza” as an object. When we talk about the structure, we talk about “to do” (infinitive) “something” (object). In this specific verse, “to have” is a verb (written as an infinitive as “to do”) and “life” is an object (written as “something”). It’s about the STRUCTURE, not the individual words.Then why do you think John 5:26 is saying that the Father gave Jesus to do something ?
When we look at a syntactic structure, we use the specific term we are analyzing (here “to give”) and then plug in other words to demonstrate the structure. “He gave his children to spend the night with their friends.” “He gave his dog to walk freely in the park.” “He gave his son to have his own money.” The structure here is “he gave” with an indirect object, then an infinitive with a direct object. In other words, “he gave someone to do something.” That’s how the given expression is structured. Are you really not able to generalize things in this way? It’s no wonder you come to so many bad conclusions.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
It's hardly just the KJV:Yes, it’s nonsense. We don’t give people to do things. That’s not how ANYONE speaks English today.
You’re sounding like a KJV-Only nut. Look at other translations and stop trying to force the KJV down our throats.
For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He gave to the Son to have life in Himself.
Berean Literal Bible
For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
NASB
For just as the Father has life in Himself , even so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself .
Amplified Bible
For just as The Father has The Life in himself, so he has given also to The Son to have The Life in himself.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Father has the power to give life, and he has given that same power to the Son.
Contemporary English Version
For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son also to have life in himself:
Douay-Rheims
For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:
English Revised Version
for as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in Himself,
Literal Standard Version
For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
New Hearth English Bible
For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has also given to the Son to have life in Himself.
Weymouth New Testament
For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
Word English Bible
for, as the Father hath life in himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in himself,
Young's Literal Translation
etc.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Sigh. “To eat pizza” has “to eat” as an infinitive and “pizza” as an object. When we talk about the structure, we talk about “to do” (infinitive) “something” (object). In this specific verse, “to have” is a verb (written as an infinitive as “to do”) and “life” is an object (written as “something”). It’s about the STRUCTURE, not the individual words.
When we look at a syntactic structure, we use the specific term we are analyzing (here “to give”) and then plug in other words to demonstrate the structure. “He gave his children to spend the night with their friends.” “He gave his dog to walk freely in the park.” “He gave his son to have his own money.” The structure here is “he gave” with an indirect object, then an infinitive with a direct object. In other words, “he gave someone to do something.” That’s how the given expression is structured. Are you really not able to generalize things in this way? It’s no wonder you come to so many bad conclusions.
Why don't you just admit that you made a mistake instead of trying to cover up with more nonsense ? "To have" is an infinitive verb, it is not "written as an infinitive as 'to do.'"
It is perfectly good English to say that someone is given something. So for instance we say "Jack gave me an apple." Now if we throw a reflexive pronoun into the mix, then we use the infinitive form of the verb ("to have") and the sentence would read as follows: "Jack gave to me to have an apple for myself." Both are fine English sentences and are saying essentially the same thing. In the same way, the meaning of John 5:26 is clear, "The Father gave life to Jesus. " The only reason we have "to have" is because of the reflexive pronoun: "The Father gave to the Son to have life in himself."
If I had made a mistake, I'd admit it. This isn't a mistake.Why don't you just admit that you made a mistake instead of trying to cover up with more nonsense ?
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
You have made multiple mistakes while conducting this discussion with me, but have been incapable of admitting to a single one because it would involve conceding to me. Your latest mistake is in your inability to recognize that "to have" is an infinitive verb and NOT that it is written as an infinitive as “to do.” As I said, you have a strange mind, with confused notions.If I had made a mistake, I'd admit it. This isn't a mistake.
Never mind. You're too stupid.You have made multiple mistakes while conducting this discussion with me, but have been incapable of admitting to a single one because it would involve conceding to me. Your latest mistake is in your inability to recognize that "to have" is an infinitive verb and NOT that it is written as an infinitive as “to do.” As I said, you have a strange mind, with confused notions.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Never mind. You're too stupid.
Not so fast.
“Have” and “do” are two entirely different verbs. That is why it is a really stupid ( sorry Trapeza) and downright nonsensical thing to say that “‘to have’ is a verb (written as an infinitive as ‘to do’). “
”To have” and “to do” are both infinitive forms of different verbs.
Roger Thornhill
Well-known member
Sigh. “To eat pizza” has “to eat” as an infinitive and “pizza” as an object. When we talk about the structure, we talk about “to do” (infinitive) “something” (object). In this specific verse, “to have” is a verb (written as an infinitive as “to do”) and “life” is an object (written as “something”). It’s about the STRUCTURE, not the individual words.
When we look at a syntactic structure, we use the specific term we are analyzing (here “to give”) and then plug in other words to demonstrate the structure. “He gave his children to spend the night with their friends.” “He gave his dog to walk freely in the park.” “He gave his son to have his own money.” The structure here is “he gave” with an indirect object, then an infinitive with a direct object. In other words, “he gave someone to do something.” That’s how the given expression is structured. Are you really not able to generalize things in this way? It’s no wonder you come to so many bad conclusions.
I read this as he have the Son the ability to resurrect the dead because of the verses leading up to it. This would happen after he was resurrected as a life-giving spirit.
After all God could have just resurrected him as merely a spirit.
But it’s written in the past tense (ἔδωκεν) from the perspective of Jesus as he was speaking to the Jewish leaders who had posed the question to him. God had already granted that right to Jesus as he was speaking. He demonstrated it by raising the dead in the Gospels, did he not?I read this as he have the Son the ability to resurrect the dead because of the verses leading up to it. This would happen after he was resurrected as a life-giving spirit.
After all God could have just resurrected him as merely a spirit.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
I wouldn't count too much on the past tense to make such a case, as Jesus not infrequently spoke proleptically using the past tense forms. The important thing people should gather from John 5:26 is that Jesus was not God, because he was given (or as Trapeza imagines, "granted") this ability by God roughly two thousand years ago (give or take a few days depending on when you think it was given).But it’s written in the past tense (ἔδωκεν) from the perspective of Jesus as he was speaking to the Jewish leaders who had posed the question to him. God had already granted that right to Jesus as he was speaking. He demonstrated it by raising the dead in the Gospels, did he not?