Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Not interested in you empty noise.

Just tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "life had come into existence in him."

Shouldn't require more than one , or at most two sentences to answer this question.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Not interested in you empty noise.

Just tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "life had come into existence in him."

Shouldn't require more than one , or at most two sentences to answer this question.
Too stupid to answer the questions, huh? I should've guessed it. It was foolish of me to assume that you would know what all those words meant.

The two sentences have different subjects, predicate nominative, and different verbs. The verb ἦν doesn't appear at all in the second phrase "life had come into existence in him." Now shut up, idiot.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Too stupid to answer the questions, huh? I should've guessed it. It was foolish of me to assume that you would know what all those words meant.

Nah, rather it was "foolish" of you to have repeatedly lied, publicly -- that you told us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means.


The two sentences have different subjects, predicate nominative, and different verbs. The verb ἦν doesn't appear at all in the second phrase "life had come into existence in him." Now shut up, idiot.

Nonsense....

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Nah, rather it was "foolish" of you to have repeatedly lied, publicly -- that you told us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means.

Nonsense....

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν
I truly hope you don't burn in hell for your lies about me here, but if you do I won't grieve over it. You willfully misquoted me here. It is clear even to someone as demonstrably stupid as you that I wasn't talking about the Greek, I was saying that your "translation" is not a possible translation for the Greek. Where is ἦν translated in your rendering "life had come into existence in him?" No, you lying little puke, you said that the phase "what had come into existence in him was life" was the equivalent to "life had come into existence in him."
Are you aware that the statement "what had come into existence in him was life" equals to saying "the thing that had come into existence in him was life" or "life had come into existence in him" ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I truly hope you don't burn in hell for your lies about me here, but if you do I won't grieve over it. You willfully misquoted me here. It is clear even to someone as demonstrably stupid as you that I wasn't talking about the Greek, I was saying that your "translation" is not a possible translation for the Greek. Where is ἦν translated in your rendering "life had come into existence in him?" No, you lying little puke, you said that the phase "what had come into existence in him was life" was the equivalent to "life had come into existence in him."

Nonsense.

Now back on point: Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "the thing that had come into existence in him was life." And don't repeat the big lie -- that you have already told us what it means.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Nonsense.

Now back on point: Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "the thing that had come into existence in him was life." And don't repeat the lie that you have already done so.
You left out the phrase we were actually discussing, RJM. I'm not going to let you get away with. I'm going to take a pound of flesh from you. Where is ἦν translated in the "life had come into existence in him?" Since you claim that it is equivalent to the other two, prove it.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You left out the phrase we were actually discussing, RJM. I'm not going to let you get away with. I'm going to take a pound of flesh from you. Where is ἦν translated in the "life had come into existence in him?" Since you claim that it is equivalent to the other two, prove it.

See bold below— “What came into existence in him was life.” If you don’t understand that this English sentence is equivalent to “Life came into existence in him” then you should ban yourself from reading the Gospel of John even in English.

In any case, enough of your trying to change the subject, you lying spirit. Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "the thing that had come into existence in him was life."
 

John Milton

Well-known member
See bold below— “What came into existence in him was life.” If you don’t understand that this English sentence is equivalent to “Life came into existence in him” then you should ban yourself from reading the Gospel of John even in English.
It's not the same. You know this, and that's why you can't answer my question above. The reason for this is that the verse doesn't say that "life came into existence." That is not a possible understanding of the verse. Squirm, you little puke.
In any case, enough of your trying to change the subject, you lying spirit. Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "the thing that had come into existence in him was life."
That wasn't what we were discussing. I have no interest in your attempts to change the subject away from your enormous error.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's not the same. You know this, and that's why you can't answer my question above. The reason for this is that the verse doesn't say that "life came into existence." That is not a possible understanding of the verse. Squirm, you little puke.

Nonsense. You don't seem to be able to process a simple English sentence, so discussing Greek with you is a fools errand.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I have no interest in your attempts to change the subject away from your enormous error.

Sure we were. You even lied about it.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν

What came into existence in it/him was life


The English translation above is saying that the thing which came into existence in it/him was life. Which is the same as saying that life (i.e. the thing which) came into existence in it/him.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν

What came into existence in it/him was life


The English translation above is saying that the thing which came into existence in it/him was life. Which is the same as saying that life (i.e. the thing which) came into existence in it/him.
Again clown, that's not the phrase we were discussing. It was "life came into existence in him." Keep it up; you're doing great!
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You've correctly translated this part...
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν
What came into existence in it/him was life.

But...
"Life came into existence in him" is not a valid translation of ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You are the only one lying, RJM. You are doing a fantastic job of making a fool of yourself. Keep it up!
Unfortunately you are. Over here I asked you the following question ("Ofcourse the text says 'what had come into existence in him was life.' What do you think the text says ?") And in the very next post (here) you replied with "I just told you." Which is a lie, since you still haven't told us what you think "what had come into existence in him was life" means.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The phrase "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" tells us two things definitively.
1) There is no new creation event in this verse. The perfect "γέγονεν" can only refer to a past creation event. That must be the creation event in verse 3, because the text is clear there that there is/was no other.

You are assuming that in the prologue each statement is chronological, or at least that it is here.

My view is that the sequence is used to introduce a term in one verse and pick it up in the next. Here life needed to directly precede light.

Your view would be more feasible if 1:4 was linked with και. When και connects clauses it most frequently links sequential temporal events.

I have to chuckle when someone's proof consists of "because the text is clear."

To make it clear you make presumptions. And until you actually tell us what "life" is here, it's not possible for you to


2) "ζωὴ" is equated with the things that had come into existence in the word and not to the word specifically, as you seem to think.

What could they be? Thanks for your opinion.

The more you "consider," the less you get right.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Again clown, that's not the phrase we were discussing. It was "life came into existence in him." Keep it up; you're doing great!
Of course we are discussing that phrase because "Life came into existence in him" means the same thing as "what came into existence in him was life." Didn't I just explained to you why and how ?

Here is an example: "What / That which came to him was money." Isn't that not the same as saying that "Money came to him" ? The first sentence uses a demonstrative pronoun to reiterate the fact that "money" came to him. That's all.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Unfortunately you are. Over here I asked you the following question ("Ofcourse the text says 'what had come into existence in him was life.' What do you think the text says ?")
This is another lie. That isn't what you said, and the link you've provided confirms that.
The Real John Milton said:
Ofcourse the text says that. You just don't know biblical Greek, that's all. What do you think the text says ?

You are retroactively saying that is what you meant, you lying puke.
And in the very next post (here) you replied with "I just told you."
And I had. I had just given you the correct translation of the TEXT that you asked about, you lying puke.
Which is a lie, since you still haven't told us what you think "what had come into existence in him was life" means.
You didn't ask about that, and the only reason you are asking it now is in a vain attempt to save face, you lying, sleazy puke.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You are assuming that in the prologue each statement is chronological, or at least that it is here.
It doesn't matter what you believe the chronology is. There is only one creation event, it doesn't matter when it happened in sequence.
My view is that the sequence is used to introduce a term in one verse and pick it up in the next.
Your view imagines two creation events. That's not possible.
Here life needed to directly precede light.
??? There is no need for you to elaborate. You'll only say something else dumb.
Your view would be more feasible if 1:4 was linked with και. When και connects clauses it most frequently links sequential temporal events.

I have to chuckle when someone's proof consists of "because the text is clear."
I have to chuckle when someone says their "understanding" is correct and they neither know Greek nor have a single person who does that will support their view. At least I have reason to laugh.

It is clear you can't find support for two creations, or you would have that in your "scholarly paper."
To make it clear you make presumptions. And until you actually tell us what "life" is here, it's not possible for you to
I haven't made a single assumption. I have argued directly from what the text actually says.
What could they be? Thanks for your opinion.
Knowing what ζωὴ means has absolutely no bearing on the fact that there is only a single creation event, not the two that you erroneously claim. Do you understand what your insurmountable obstacle is?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is another lie. That isn't what you said, and the link you've provided confirms that.


You are retroactively saying that is what you meant, you lying puke.

Again, the readers can see for themselves. I asked the following (see underlined), with immediate context provided in bold: "Ofcourse the text says 'what had come into existence in him was life.' What do you think the text says ?


And I had. I had just given you the correct translation of the TEXT that you asked about, you lying puke.

You didn't ask about that, and the only reason you are asking it now is in a vain attempt to save face, you lying, sleazy puke.
You had done that before I asked my question, and I had already agreed that translation. I said "Of course..." So I did not ask about the "translation." My question came after that fact had already been established. My question asked you the meaning of "what had come into existence in him was life." You lied and said that you had already answered this question.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Hey Roger,

Am I wrong to say that "That which came into existence in him was life" essentially means that "Life came into existence in him" ?

The (false) John Milton thinks the two statements are saying something different. Though he won't explain the apparent difference nor even tell us what "That which came into existence in him was life" means.

How does one conduct an honest discussion when one party doesn't want to address the tough questions?
 
Top