ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,I shouldn't have to, if you are as competent with your Greek as you think you are. Both prepositional phrases are used adverbially, and modify the verb.
I can't help it if you don't understand how the language works, and you have long ago proven yourself unteachable.ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,
How would that come out in English? “He will be with us, he will be unto eternity?” Nonsense.
The object of the preposition μεθ is ὑμῶν , and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is modifying ὑμῶν. You are just wrong.
Ad hominem distraction is not a winning strategy.I can't help it if you don't understand how the language works, and you have long ago proven yourself unteachable.
This makes no sense at all, and it's only an ad hominem when it isn't true. Any first year Greek student could parse this out and realize that both prepositional phrases modify ῇ adverbially. It modifies the state of being inherent in the verb, not the implied subject of the verb. But I do thank you for the reminder that combatting willful ignorance is a losing proposition.Ad hominem distraction is not a winning strategy.
I want readers to understand that if both prepositional phrases modify the verb , as Gryllus now says, then we get the following, whereby each prepositional phrase says something about the subject:
“It/He may be with us, (it/he) may be unto the ages.”
In other words, the Parakletos will be with us, the Parakletos will be unto the ages. So according to his understanding, the verse is NOT saying that the Parakletos will be with us unto the ages, but only that it will be unto the ages ( a statement about it’s eternity). That is clearly a rather twisted reading. In truth, the first preposition is adverbial, the second complements the pronoun.
Gryllus made a mistake, but his pride is causing him to double, triple down on falsehood.
So how would your take of the clause turn out in English ? Please translate in English, next post.This makes no sense at all, and it's only an ad hominem when it isn't true. Any first year Greek student could parse this out and realize that both prepositional phrases modify ῇ adverbially. It modifies the state of being inherent in the verb, not the implied subject of the verb. But I do thank you for the reminder that combatting willful ignorance is a losing proposition.
This has already been explained to you in the clearest terms, and if you can't get it, then that's it. How it works out in English to express the same thought is not necessarily how it is structured in the original. At any rate, I'm done wasting time on this particular topic. But just for another example showing that Greek and English use different grammatical constructions, consider the dative of possession:So how would your take of the clause turn out in English ? Please translate in English, next post.
All of the bible translations take the grammar as I and BeDuhn do, with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα complementing ὑμῶν. Here is one:
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you to the age--
Are you saying that even though you construe the grammar here differently that it comes out meaning the same as BeDuhn’s understanding ? Because that is clearly impossible.
I’m not asking you to give an inter linear type translation, but a translation into English consistent with your understanding of the Greek of the clause. Let’s have it.This has already been explained to you in the clearest terms, and if you can't get it, then that's it. How it works out in English to express the same thought is not necessarily how it is structured in the original. At any rate, I'm done wasting time on this particular topic. But just for another example showing that Greek and English use different grammatical constructions, consider the dative of possession:
τῷ παιδί ἐστιν ὁ μαχαῖρος
Literally something like "the sword is to the boy" but that's practically nonsense in English, so we have to render "The boy has a sword" or "The sword belongs to the boy" whatever sounds best in context. A similar thing is taking place in the adverbial constructions between the Greek and the English in the passage above. I'm sorry you can't see this, but it's more proof that your statements based on the original languages are not to be trusted.
Looking at it from an Engish perspective, there is no semantic modification of ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν is those who believe in Christ, who remain unchanged by "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα." The adverbial phrase "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" applies rather to the whole of "ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν". I would see μεθ’ ὑμῶν" as a predicate genitive as not as adverbial.ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,
Gryllus contends that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in above stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ᾖ.
The only way that is possible is if the two prepositional phrases, namely μεθ’ ὑμῶν and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα function independently of each other. So the English translation would be as follows:
“It may be with us, (it may be) forever.”
That is what his grammar amounts to.
But in actual fact, the second prepositional phrase is functioning adjectivally and modifying the pronoun ὑμῶν. Only then do we get “..it may be with us unto the ages.”
If Gryllus comes back at all, it will be with ad hominems and not with any serious refutation of what I just said.
I don't know what you mean by "applies," but you seem to be on the right track. You are right to understand that the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is functioning adjectivally , and it is complimenting ὑμῶν. It is certainly not the case that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is standing alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ᾖ. For that to happen we would have had the following -- ᾖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, and NOT ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.Looking at it from an Engish perspective, there is no semantic modification of ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν is those who believe in Christ, who remain unchanged by "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα." The adverbial phrase "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" applies rather to the whole of "ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν". I would see μεθ’ ὑμῶν" as a predicate genitive as not as adverbial.
As I see it there are two ways of looking at it which lead to exactly the same result. You can apply εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα adverbially to ᾖ, and simultaneously apply the genitive predicate μεθ’ ὑμῶν to ᾖ as modified adverbially. Or you can apply the predicate first and then apply εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα to the predicate clause.I don't know what you mean by "applies,"
The standard translations do fine with this. And I don't "hate" BeDuhn -- I just think that he is wrong on several of his claims.I’m not asking you to give an inter linear type translation, but a translation into English consistent with your understanding of the Greek of the clause. Let’s have it.
it certainly cannot be saying that the Parakletos will be with us unto the ages because you do not think, as BeDuhn and I do, that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing ὑμῶν.
Your foolish pride is your downfall.
The problem with that, as I have already pointed out ( several times now) is that you get two independent prepositional phrases as follows-As I see it there are two ways of looking at it which lead to exactly the same result. You can apply εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα adverbially to ᾖ, and simultaneously apply the genitive predicate μεθ’ ὑμῶν to ᾖ as modified adverbially. Or you can apply the predicate first and then apply εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα to the predicate clause.
I think that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα cannot stand alone, as there is only one verb.
The standard translation works only if εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing ὑμῶν and not standing alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ᾖ ( as you are saying). Your understanding of the grammar makes the standard translation impossible.The standard translations do fine with this. And I don't "hate" BeDuhn -- I just think that he is wrong on several of his claims.
I was looking at this from an English perspective. I don't think Greek is much different. I saw the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα as an adverbial clause, not an adjectival clause, due to its application requiring a verb (adverb clauses answer inter alia the question of 'when?'). I suppose technically μεθ’ ὑμῶν would also be adverbial, but a better way to deal with this might be to see a (double) prepositional phrase acting as a predicate nominative (see below).The problem with that, as I have already pointed out ( several times now) is that you get two independent prepositional phrases as follows-
“It will be with us, (it will be) unto eternity.”
In other words the first prepositional phrase is saying that the Parakletos will be with us and the second is saying that it will be unto eternity. Do you think the verse is saying this, rather than that the Parakletos will be with us unto eternity ?
Gryllus is unwilling to admit to his error because of pride gone amok, what is your excuse ?
I was looking at this from an English perspective. I don't think Greek is much different. I saw the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα as an adverbial clause, not an adjectival clause, due to its application requiring a verb (adverb clauses answer inter alia the question of 'when?'). I suppose technically μεθ’ ὑμῶν would also be adverbial, but a better way to deal with this might be to see a (double) prepositional phrase acting as a predicate nominative (see below).
If adjectival, it must modify a noun, but what is being modified could only be μεθ’ ὑμῶν rather than ὑμῶν on its own. However μεθ’ ὑμῶν is not strictly being modfied, but added to. This is the problem I have with your adjectival thesis: I don't see a noun being modified here. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is a time clause, and goes with a verb.
Looking at the biblehub interlinear, it seems to see a single indivisible predicate to ᾖ, in «μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα».
This would denote a double prepositional phrase acting as a predicate nominative. For me this is the simplest and best analysis. Winer doesn't even comment on this verse, so there can't be anything difficult about it.
Where I disagree with Gryllus is to see μεθ’ ὑμῶν as adverbial on its own. If it is to be taken on its own, it must stand in place of a predicate nominative as the main clause, because εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα will then become a dependent adverbial clause, which acts on that main clause.A pronoun is being modified here, not a noun. Also if μεθ’ ὑμῶν is being “added to” εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα then εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is not standing alone, is it ? Stop trying to do the dirty work for Gryllus, which he is not willing to do so for himself; because he probably knows that he is wrong. A true profile in courage. He is willing to lead naive people like you astray in the process.. Don’t be a victim of his ego.
I'm glad that you can see all that. It is a no brainer.Where I disagree with Gryllus is to see μεθ’ ὑμῶν as adverbial on its own. If it is to be taken on its own, it must stand in place of a predicate nominative as the main clause. If it is adverbial, it must be taken together with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα as a single adverb clause. The idea of two adverb clauses makes no sense.
I also disagree with him that "εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" can be applied directly to the verb alone. Although adverbial. it is a dependent adverbial clause, that links to the main clause and has no meaning without it. μεθ’ ὑμῶν with verb is a main clause here. The essence of the communication is that "I may be with you."
I think the better way is to see the whole of «μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα» as either one single adverbial clause, or as ACTING as a predicate nominative (I didn't sat it was one). That is, it stands in place of a predicate nominative