Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

[The Real John Milton]

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.

Why not ?

 

[John Milton]

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 ?

Yes, the readers can see for themselves that you lied about what was said.

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.

I answered your question already as any competent reader will see. Keep on lying, RJM.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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.

You assume the prologue is sequential. In my view it maintains a rhetorical device that introduces something in one clause and then picks it up in the next. "Life" needed to precede light which leads into "Light."

Of course creation was in the past of when John wrote the prologue.

That must be the creation event in verse 3, because the text is clear there that there is/was no other.

I have to chuckle when the best evidence is "the text is clear there that..."

The fact is that the punctuation was changed to eliminate that possibility but you still argue based on the KJV punctuation. If what you say is true, why was it changed? I am just repeating the view of the NA27 committee

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.

Until you identify what that is, it sounds ridiculous. I hold to a literal view

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

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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.

Life is what came into existence in him.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yes, the readers can see for themselves that you lied about what was said.

I answered your question already as any competent reader will see. Keep on lying, RJM.

No, but let's start fresh, be reasonable. My question is, if it was not clear to you before, the following:

What does "That which came into existence in him was life" mean, if not "Life came into existence in him" ?

Can you honestly say that you have answered this question ?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Life is what came into existence in him.

Lol! That works, also.

 

[John Milton]

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.

I've already told you the difference twice.

I'll try to help you figure it out. Answer the following questions on your journey to understanding.
1) What is the subject of the following phrase: what had come into existence in him was life?
2) What is the predicate nominative of the following phrase: what had come into existence in him was life?
3) What Greek verb is needed to translate the following word: was?

4) What is the subject of the following phrase: life had come into existence in him?
5) What is the predicate nominative of the following phrase: life had come into existence in him?
6) What Greek verb is needed to translate the following phrase: had come into existence?

Compare your answers for numbers 1-3 with your answers from 4-6. Are those the same?
What should that tell you?


The "empty barrel" made a fool of you, that's all. What does that make you?

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.

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

You obviously aren't interested in an honest discussion.

 

[John Milton]

No, but let's start fresh, be reasonable.

What you mean by "be reasonable" is to give you a pass for your obvious lies and misdirections and to allow you to change the subject. That's simply not going to happen.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I've already told you the difference twice.

Perhaps in your imagination. You have not explained why the two statements are saying something other than that life came into existence in the Logos. Also you have not told us what "That which came into existence in him was life" means ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I've already told you the difference twice.




You obviously aren't interested in an honest discussion.

He likes to assert what something cannot mean but is not willing to defend a position as to what it does mean. He's in a rough place there where no commentator has gone before. He's not qualified to be Kirk or Spock, that's for sure.

 

[The Real John Milton]

What you mean by "be reasonable" is to give you a pass for your obvious lies and misdirections and to allow you to change the subject. That's simply not going to happen.

No, just giving you a chance to be reasonable. It is obvious that you do not consider that to be a winning strategy.

 

[The Real John Milton]

He likes to assert what something cannot mean but is not willing to defend a position as to what it does mean. He's in a rough place there where no commentator has gone before. He's not qualified to be Kirk or Spock, that's for sure.

And lies about it when called out.

 

[John Milton]

Life is what came into existence in him.

Not quite. That specific English rendering allows you to misunderstand the text because of the ambiguity in what the English means. "Life was what had come into existence in him" is the nearest equivalent. (It won't be an exact equivalent because of the switching of the subject and the predicate nominative.)

 

[The Real John Milton]

What is the difference in meaning between "That which came into existence in him was life" and "Life is that which came into existence in him" and 'Life came into existence in him" or "Life is what came into existence in him" ? Short answer, NOTHING. And that is a fact .

 

[John Milton]

No, just giving you a chance to be reasonable. It is obvious that you do not consider that to be a winning strategy.

I'm not going to sanction your lies with my approval.

 

[John Milton]

What is the difference in meaning between "That which came into existence in him was life" and "Life is that which came into existence in him" and 'Life came into existence in him" or "Life is what came into existence in him" ? Short answer, NOTHING. And that is a fact .

You are an idiot. And that is a fact.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not quite. That specific English rendering allows you to misunderstand the text because of the ambiguity in what the English means. "Life is what had come into existence in him" is the nearest equivalent. (It won't be an exact equivalent because of the switching of the subject and the predicate nominative.)

How would someone "misunderstand" the text ? And we are talking about meaning, not just a word for word translation of the Greek into English (which is often impossible anyway, and sometimes not even the best policy).

 

[The Real John Milton]

You are an idiot. And that is a fact.

So what is the difference in meaning between each of those statements? I'm calling your bluff.

And don't lie and say that you have already done so.

 

[John Milton]

He likes to assert what something cannot mean but is not willing to defend a position as to what it does mean. He's in a rough place there where no commentator has gone before. He's not qualified to be Kirk or Spock, that's for sure.

I said your claim was false, and I've conclusively demonstrated that. I couldn't tell you why you imagine the situation is any different than this. I guess it's the same stupidity that causes you to make confident assertions about a language that you don't know that aren't shared by a single person who knows the language.

 

[John Milton]

How would someone "misunderstand" the text ? And we are talking about meaning, not just a word for word translation of the Greek into English (which is often impossible anyway, and sometimes not even the best policy).

All of this is too much for you RJM. Don't strain yourself; you're too stupid.