Breakthrough at John 1:1b , two singular personal substantives found in LXX!

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
21:13 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα Σορ τὴν πεδινὴν τοὺς λέγοντας τίς πτοήσει ἡμᾶς ἢ τίς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς τὸ κατοικητήριον ἡμῶν

Jeremiah 21:13

But it does not mean " I am with you" or "I am at your house" etc., rather it means "I am AGAINST you." So the Trinitarian reading at John 1:1b is diabolical indeed, since they take both the singular substantives as individuals:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was against God, and the Word was Himself God."

The way to say that one person is "with" another person using the verb εἰμί in Greek is NOT with πρὸς + accusative (that denotes the exact opposite), but with μετὰ and genitive.

ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ........

John 3:26
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
It's a rather literal translation of the Hebrew:

הִנְנִי אֵלַיִךְ יֹשֶׁבֶת הָעֵמֶק צוּ

And there's no breakthrough here. Different context and translation literature. "Against" would be a horrible rendering of πρός in John 1:1.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's a rather literal translation of the Hebrew:

הִנְנִי אֵלַיִךְ יֹשֶׁבֶת הָעֵמֶק צוּ

And there's no breakthrough here. Different context and translation literature. "
That's not an argument, it's an empty excuse. Can you show us with a real life example where when two individuals are in view, such an expression can mean anything other than that " individual X is against individual Y" ? That is the literal and only meaning so far. If we want to say that individual X is with individual Y , biblical Greek uses μετὰ σοῦ.

By the way, apostle John's Greek is the equivalent of "translational Greek" in the Gospel , Revelation and in his Epistles. Greek was his second (probably third) language.


Against" would be a horrible rendering of πρός in John 1:1.

No kidding. But that's what such an expression means if two individuals are in view . You claim otherwise, you got to show the proof.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Jeremiah 21:13

But it does not mean " I am with you" or "I am at your house" etc., rather it means "I am AGAINST you." So the Trinitarian reading at John 1:1b is diabolical indeed, since they take both the singular substantives as individuals:



The way to say that one person is "with" another person using the verb εἰμί in Greek is NOT with πρὸς + accusative (that denotes the exact opposite), but with μετὰ and genitive.



John 3:26

Jer 21:13 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα Σορ τὴν πεδινὴν τοὺς λέγοντας τίς πτοήσει ἡμᾶς ἢ τίς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς τὸ κατοικητήριον ἡμῶν

Where is the ειμι? Or do you rely on a verbless clause?

The BDAG idiom is προς τινα ειναι.

Also, it's an example where προς is spatially directed just like in John 1:1.

It illustrates how your God's own λόγος facing himself does not work at all.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Jer 21:13 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα Σορ τὴν πεδινὴν τοὺς λέγοντας τίς πτοήσει ἡμᾶς ἢ τίς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς τὸ κατοικητήριον ἡμῶν

Where is the ειμι? Or do you rely on a verbless clause?

The BDAG idiom is προς τινα ειναι.

Also, it's an example where προς is spatially directed just like in John 1:1.

It illustrates how your God's own λόγος facing himself does not work at all.
Not infrequently when ἐγὼ is used, ειμι is simply implied. This cannot be a verb less clause.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Not infrequently when ἐγὼ is used, ειμι is simply implied. This cannot be a verb less clause.

That's what a verbless clause is, when the ειμι is understood.

I think that the "inhabitant" is the figurative "rock" it is parallel with.

Later on it is shown to be plural, so it is semantically plural. Are you allowing plurals now?
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
That's not an argument, it's an empty excuse. Can you show us with a real life example where when two individuals are in view, such an expression can mean anything other than that " individual X is against individual Y" ? That is the literal and only meaning so far. If we want to say that individual X is with individual Y , biblical Greek uses μετὰ σοῦ.

By the way, apostle John's Greek is the equivalent of "translational Greek" in the Gospel , Revelation and in his Epistles. Greek was his second (probably third) language.




No kidding. But that's what such an expression means if two individuals are in view . You claim otherwise, you got to show the proof.
No, I don't have to prove anything. It's clear how the language works and making up a silly non-applicable "rule" just does nothing for you.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It's clear how the language works and making up a silly non-applicable "rule" just does nothing for you.

With all due respect Gryllus you are the one with the "silly non-applicable rule" at John 1:1b. You say that a singular substantive + εἰμί + πρὸς + a singular accusative substantive at John 1:1b means "a person is with another person." Big claim. But can you show us a Greek verse from either the LXX or GNT which supports this ?

As for me, I've even proved the opposite of your claim, even though it's no one's job to prove a negative.


No, I don't have to prove anything.

I'm afraid that you have to prove every claim that you do make if you want to be taken seriously.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's what a verbless clause is, when the ειμι is understood.

I think that the "inhabitant" is the figurative "rock" it is parallel with.

Not sure I agree with your definition of "verbless clause," but that's really an insignificant point. Just to be clear however, I consider the nominative of exclamation at John 20:28 (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου) to be a truly verbless clause.

Regardless, it's good that you understand that ειμι is "understood" in that verse:

ἐγώ, like אֲנִי, I am: John 1:23; Acts 7:32 (cf. Winers Grammar, 585 (544); Buttmann, 125 (109)).

---

Later on it is shown to be plural, so it is semantically plural. Are you allowing plurals now?

Lol, no. That the verse is able to shift from the singular to the plural does not make the singular plural . The writer just goes from saying something about the specific to the collective. It's a nice poetic device.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Not sure I agree with your definition of "verbless clause," but that's really an insignificant point. Just to be clear however, I consider the nominative of exclamation at John 20:28 (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου) to be a truly verbless clause.

Regardless, it's good that you understand that ειμι is "understood" in that verse:



---



Lol, no. That the verse is able to shift from the singular to the plural does not make the singular plural . The writer just goes from saying something about the specific to the collective. It's a nice poetic device.

My point is also that the collective inhabitants, the Rock, a semantic plural is not a "someone."

And don't forget that your τινα προς τινα ειναι has an extra τινα.

This means that the entire list in BDAG is correct and that none of your counter examples are.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
My point is also that the collective inhabitants, the Rock, a semantic plural is not a "someone."

There is no such thing. You seem to be under the impression that a Hebraic parallelism is the equivalent of the Greek substantives in apposition. Hebrew parallelism is a structure of thought (rather than external form like meter or rhyme) in which the writer balances a series of words so that patterns of deliberate contrast or intentional repetition appear. This is an instance of a deliberate contrast (at least in terms of number), of castigating the individual on the one hand, and then the entire city on the other hand. The grammar is clear here -- we have the singular substantives in the first instance.


And don't forget that your τινα προς τινα ειναι has an extra τινα.

This means that the entire list in BDAG is correct and that none of your counter examples are.

It's not that John 1:1b has an extra τινα, but that BDAG is making an invalid argument by surreptitiously (it knows better) ignoring the actual syntax of John 1:1b. There (and every where else in it's example list) it is not προς τινα ειναι but τινα προς τινα ειναι. Your "logic" here is twisted. It's not BDAG that syntax of which scripture has to follow, but the other way round.

As for your other point, it is also rather meaningless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
There is no such thing. You seem to be under the impression that a Hebraic parallelism is the equivalent of the Greek substantives in apposition. Hebrew parallelism is a structure of thought (rather than external form like meter or rhyme) in which the writer balances a series of words so that patterns of deliberate contrast or intentional repetition appear. This is an instance of a deliberate contrast, of castigating the individual on the one hand, and then the entire city on the other hand. The grammar is clear here -- we have the singular substantives.




It's not that John 1:1b has an extra τινα, but that BDAG is making an invalid argument by actually ignoring the actual syntax of John 1:1b. It's not προς τινα ειναι but τινα προς τινα ειναι. Your "logic" is twisted.

As for your other point, it is also rather meaningless

In your example of Jeremiah, God is against (προς) Jerusalem and not a singular "someone." It does not fit into the BDAG gloss. Jerusalem is not τινα.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
In your example of Jeremiah, God is against ( ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα) Jerusalem and not a singular "someone." It does not fit into the BDAG gloss. Jerusalem is not τινα.

That is simply not true. You seem to be in a state of denial . The verse is referring to a singular individual .-- ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα .

In any case, I'm glad you are beginning to realize (if only subconsciously) that πρὸς τινα ειναι (when neither party is a thing) denotes that someone is against someone else.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Found the following . Wonder how you folks are going explain these away ?

23:30 διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός τοὺς κλέπτοντας τοὺς λόγους μου ἕκαστος παρὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ

Jeremiah 23:30

and again

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς ἐκβάλλοντας προφητείας γλώσσης καὶ νυστάζοντας νυσταγμὸν ἑαυτῶν

Jeremiah 23:31

and again

23:32 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς προφητεύοντας ἐνύπνια ψευδῆ καὶ διηγοῦντο αὐτὰ καὶ ἐπλάνησαν τὸν λαόν μου ἐν τοῗς ψεύδεσιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τοῗς πλάνοις αὐτῶν καὶ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐκ ἐνετειλάμην αὐτοῗς καὶ ὠφέλειαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον
 
Top