Election

Sethproton

Well-known member
Yes, it was you pointing out that brought this conversation to another level of absurdity. My guess is that, if he has abandoned it, it is because there is no use conversing with you, but that would only be my opinion. I'll let @civic speak for himself.



If the meaning of present tense is apparent, even without the verb being written, then the meaning is the same as if it are written. You have admitted that "is" is the correct meaning, so the meaning of the present tense is necessarily valid, which makes your objections moot!




There is nothing to study. The present tense verb is the simplest of things to understand.


Doug
You are smart, but you have missed the single point about this, so I will repeat it for you again.
You cannot make a theological point about the tense of a verb, when that verse does not exist.
period
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is..." - Slick Willy.
Actually this is not about the meaning of the word "is." It is about the fact that there is no verb, and therefore, there is no verb tense and therefore it is invalid to make a doctrinal point based on a verb tense that does not exist
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
You are smart, but you have missed the single point about this, so I will repeat it for you again.
You cannot make a theological point about the tense of a verb, when that verse does not exist.
period
Seth, the verb not being actually written doesn’t mean the verb is not there by necessary implication.

If you can establish meaning, which you admittedly have, you can, and have, established a theological belief, or at least the foundation on which a belief rests. The “is” is both necessary and thus implicit, and you would do well to shelf the, to use your word, the nonsense of your self stultifying argument.

Doug
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Actually this is not about the meaning of the word "is." It is about the fact that there is no verb, and therefore, there is no verb tense and therefore it is invalid to make a doctrinal point based on a verb tense that does not exist

1) Beloved Daughter is a professional teacher, and she teaches English. And she has demonstrated that you are wrong.

2) TibiasDad has studied Koine Greek, and I can tell you that you need to have a GOOD undesrtanding of English grammar to understand Greek grammar. And he has corrected you.

3) I, Theo1689, have studied Koine Greek, and have corrected you as well.

4) Civic has corrected you as well, and I can attest that the information he has shared with you is correct, as can TibiasDad.

5) Johnnybgood has also seen beneath your false facade.

6) You, Sethproton, have made MULTIPLE basic errors of grammar in your posts, including (ironically) multiple errors in misuse of the verb, "to be".

What more do you need?
Or is this truly the hill you want to proverbially die on?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Seth, the verb not being actually written doesn’t mean the verb is not there by necessary implication.

If you can establish meaning, which you admittedly have, you can, and have, established a theological belief, or at least the foundation on which a belief rests. The “is” is both necessary and thus implicit, and you would do well to shelf the, to use your word, the nonsense of your self stultifying argument.

Doug
Ok Doug. If you think you can make a theological point about the tense of a verb that does not exist, we should stop discussing that particular point
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Ok Doug. If you think you can make a theological point about the tense of a verb that does not exist, we should stop discussing that particular point
Can you tell us why every single translation without exception includes the verb is in 1 Tim 2:5. What do you see that every single translator does not see ?

Are all the translators wrong when they are in complete agreement ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Can you tell us why every single translation without exception includes the verb is in 1 Tim 2:5. What do you see that every single translator does not see ?

Are all the translators wrong when they are in complete agreement ?

But you don't understand!

All the Greek scholars who translated the New Testament are all wrong!
And Seth (who knows ZERO Greek) is correct!

And ALL the lexicons that neglect to define "μεσιτης" as "court" mediator are all wrong!
And Seth (who knows ZERO Greek) is correct!
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Can you tell us why every single translation without exception includes the verb is in 1 Tim 2:5. What do you see that every single translator does not see ?

Are all the translators wrong when they are in complete agreement ?
Johnny, are you having difficulty reading these posts and remembering what is being said? Is there some different way i should talk to you to help you? But let me answer your question again.
In our verse, in the Greek, there is no verb. The sentence is understood without a verb. In English we need a verb to understand what is meant,
But since the Greek has no verb there, a person cannot make a theological point about a present tense verb.
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Johnny, are you having difficulty reading these posts and remembering what is being said? Is there some different way i should talk to you to help you?
I don’t see an answer to Johnny’s question….
Ok Doug. If you think you can make a theological point about the tense of a verb that does not exist, we should stop discussing that particular point
It does exist implicitly in the Greek, which is why the “is” is necessarily included in English to make sense in our language.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that “is” is a correct translation of 1 Tim 2:5? (And this must be a Greek sytaxical response, btw!)

And you are avoiding my argument about meaning being the foundation of interpretation! If you assert with us that the English translation of “is” is correct, as you have, then the meaning of the clause is the same whether it has the verb or not, correct! If there is real meaning to the English translation in that clause, then it informs the meaning of the remained of the verse as well, and the meaning of the whole completed thought becomes the rationale for concluding the author’s intended message to his readers, does it not?

Then in the end, meaning is derived and theological arguments can be made based on the meaning of the thought with or without the verbs written presence in the sentence.

Doug
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
I don’t see an answer to Johnny’s question….

It does exist implicitly in the Greek, which is why the “is” is necessarily included in English to make sense
I think you and i have reached an impasse with you claiming an implicit verb can be studied and used to create doctrine. NOTE: the concepts of existing and implicit are opposites. So to say something exists implicitly is an oxymoron

But as far as Johnny's question, I've tried to keep up though for some reason I answer and a few posts later he asks the exact question again.
But your help would be appreciated, can you articulate the question he asked that you would like to see an answer to?
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
I think you and i have reached an impasse with you claiming an implicit verb can be studied and used to create doctrine.
ie, You have no repudiation of my argument!
NOTE: the concepts of existing and implicit are opposites. So to say something exists implicitly is an oxymoron

An implication is based on the presumed existence of something as necessary to the thought. “The ocean has fish” implies that I include sharks in the statement. Implying does not mean that I am creating something non-existent to make my statement, “the ocean has fish” true! That is precisely what you seem to be saying; that we are making up the meaning of “is” in order to create the meaning we want!
“heis gar Theos” means nothing in Greek if the verb “estin” is not necessarily implied by either the context or syntax. And the English translation would be even more meaningless is no verb is found or intended in the Greek!

Believe what you want, that is your prerogative, but it is not an informed belief, and I have done all I can to dissuade you of your error. My shoes are now dustless and I leave you to your own recognizance.

May the grace of God enlighten your mind and heart,

Doug
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
ie, You have no repudiation of my argument!


An implication is based on the presumed existence of something as necessary to the thought. “The ocean has fish” implies that I include sharks in the statement. Implying does not mean that I am creating something non-existent to make my statement, “the ocean has fish” true! That is precisely what you seem to be saying; that we are making up the meaning of “is” in order to create the meaning we want!
“heis gar Theos” means nothing in Greek if the verb “estin” is not necessarily implied by either the context or syntax. And the English translation would be even more meaningless is no verb is found or intended in the Greek!

Believe what you want, that is your prerogative, but it is not an informed belief, and I have done all I can to dissuade you of your error. My shoes are now dustless and I leave you to your own recognizance.

May the grace of God enlighten your mind and heart,

Doug
implicit means you did not say it, therefore, whatever "it" is, does not exist in your sentence.
Your concept of shark being implicit in the ocean misses the actual issue.
We are not speaking about the idea that certain physical objects while existing, can merely be implied
We are talking about the construction of a sentence. If a word is explicitly in a sentence, then it exists there
If someone believes a word is implicit in the sentence, the idea is present, but the word is not actually present

I am wondering why anyone, without some kind of agenda, would not recognize that the verb is does not actually exist in the sentence
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
You are smart, but you have missed the single point about this, so I will repeat it for you again.
You cannot make a theological point about the tense of a verb, when that verse does not exist.
period
And you can’t make a theological point that Jesus is no longer our mediator when 3 different passages say that he is our mediator and not was our mediator. You are doing the same thing that you said we are going . Why are you doing that ?
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
How do you do that?

We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2Co 6:1 NKJ)

We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you as means to a decreed end that you believe in irresistible grace and not in true personal responsibility. (No Bible Ever)
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
implicit means you did not say it, therefore, whatever "it" is, does not exist in your sentence.
Your concept of shark being implicit in the ocean misses the actual issue.
We are not speaking about the idea that certain physical objects while existing, can merely be implied
We are talking about the construction of a sentence. If a word is explicitly in a sentence, then it exists there
If someone believes a word is implicit in the sentence, the idea is present, but the word is not actually present

I am wondering why anyone, without some kind of agenda, would not recognize that the verb is does not actually exist in the sentence
No, implicit means that though the verb is not explicitly stated, its presence, and more to the point, its meaning is implied, and that strongly or, in the case of a verb, necessarily!

You are the one with the agenda, Seth. The man Jesus Christ is our mediator presently, and to deny that is to deny any present remedy to being reconciled with God! My only agenda in this conversation is to persuade you to understanding this truth- for your sake, not mine!

Implicit

ADJECTIVE
implied though not plainly expressed.
"comments seen as implicit criticism of the policies"
synonyms:
implied · indirect · inferred · understood · hinted · [more]
(implicit in)
essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in.
"the values implicit in the school ethos"
synonyms:
inherent · intrinsic · incorporated · inseparable · inbuilt · [more]
with no qualification or question; absolute.
"an implicit faith in God"
synonyms:
absolute · complete · entire · total · wholehearted · perfect · [more]
mathematics
(of a function) not expressed directly in terms of independent variables.


Doug
 
Last edited:

Reformedguy

Well-known member
We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2Co 6:1 NKJ)

We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you as means to a decreed end that you believe in irresistible grace and not in true personal responsibility. (No Bible Ever)
Umm...., that does not really answer my question
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
No, implicit means that though the verb is not explicitly stated, its presence, and more to the point, its meaning is implied, and that strongly or, in the case of a verb, necessarily!

You are the one with the agenda, Seth. The man Jesus Christ is our mediator presently, and to deny that is to deny any present remedy to being reconciled with God! My only agenda in this conversation is to persuade you to understanding this truth- for your sake, not mine!

Implicit

ADJECTIVE
implied though not plainly expressed.
"comments seen as implicit criticism of the policies"
synonyms:
implied · indirect · inferred · understood · hinted · [more]
(implicit in)
essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in.
"the values implicit in the school ethos"
synonyms:
inherent · intrinsic · incorporated · inseparable · inbuilt · [more]
with no qualification or question; absolute.
"an implicit faith in God"
synonyms:
absolute · complete · entire · total · wholehearted · perfect · [more]
mathematics
(of a function) not expressed directly in terms of independent variables.


Doug
This was really good so thank you.
 
Top