If Bauer is correct should John 10:33 be rendered "a god"?

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I understand your process. I have seen it before. But it's not proper exegesis to transfer a context from the use of one word to another even if it's the same language, let alone translation from two or three different languages.

Nonsense. The prophets are the only beings to whom the Word of God is said to have come in the OT. This is very compelling. Not one word, but the operative word ἐγένετο (came), and also the secondary words ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ("the Word of God") and the preposition πρὸς ("to"). You see anything remotely identical with reference to the Angels on this score ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
But "life coming into existence in the Word" is not the same as "the word received life from the Father." You are proving my point.
Don't confuse BDAG with my analysis. It's confirmatory but not my analysis. J 1:4 does say life came into existence in him.
Also, what are you calling the later punctuation, the NA 28 or the other?
The KVJ is later. I might have said it wrong before. Here is a graph:
 

Attachments

  • 06E8CF05-DA18-4BDE-8EF0-6AE0059B0CE8.jpeg
    06E8CF05-DA18-4BDE-8EF0-6AE0059B0CE8.jpeg
    178.8 KB · Views: 1

John Milton

Well-known member
Don't confuse BDAG with my analysis. It's confirmatory but not my analysis. J 1:4 does say life came into existence in him.

The KVJ is later. I might have said it wrong before. Here is a graph:
All the punctuation was added later. Do you mean:
1) οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
2) οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I'm asking you what difference you see between the two statements, Mr. Barrels I know what I believe.
I didn't ask about what you believe, though I know that is the only criteria that matters to you. I asked if you were admitting that you didn't know the difference between the two statements. You implied that you didn't.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Don't confuse BDAG with my analysis. It's confirmatory but not my analysis.
It can't confirm your view because their comment referred to an entirely different phrase. Your preference is "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν," but BDAG was interpreting ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν. I keep telling you these are not the same. When will you understand, or do you already and you are simply playing the fool?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It can't confirm your view because their comment referred to an entirely different phrase. Your preference is "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν," but BDAG was interpreting ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν. I keep telling you these are not the same. When will you understand, or do you already and you are simply playing the fool?
Aside from your putting a period in the newer reading from the KJV, the short snippet is a subset of the entire clause from the NA28.

So you can assert its the KJV reading but that's all you have.

As a matter of fact, the preface of BDAG said it uses NA27. Therefore they would reference alternative readings as they did when they specifically endorsed the NA27 reading and called the other reading alternate because of the lack of punctuation in the earliest manuscripts.


The principal New Testament textual base is Nestle-Aland(27) (s. N. at the beginning of List 1). Some of the words appearing in BDAG are not noted in the apparatus of that edition. Frequent account is taken of variant readings which are not recorded in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. Thus the word gene,qlioj appears Mk 6:21 in codex D, and is so noted in BAAR, but not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. Although some words, such as avkaqa,rthj or na,rkh, would not ordinarily merit attention, either because they are editorial inventions which have wormed their way into respected editions without strict accounting (e.g., some Erasmian readings) or are the result of erroneous restoration of a fragmentary text, their appearance in learned discussions requires identification with cautionary notice in this lexicon. Since little advantage is to be gained by cluttering the lexicon with an unscientific collection of selected manuscript sigla, users of the lexicon are encouraged to find the sources for such variants in earlier editions of Nestle, in Tischendorf (s. Tdf. at the beginning of List 1), or in other critical editions. For related reasons I have not included in citation of text the brackets used in many passages in Nestle-Aland.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Aside from your putting a period in the newer reading from the KJV, the short snippet is a subset of the entire clause from the NA28.
Copy and paste error. Sorry about that.
So you can assert its the KJV reading but that's all you have.
That's all that's needed! You can't say that their understanding of one phrase confirms your understanding of a similar, but very different, phrase. Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
As a matter of fact, the preface of BDAG said it uses NA27. Therefore they would reference alternative readings as they did when they specifically endorsed the NA27 reading and called the other reading alternate because of the lack of punctuation in the earliest manuscripts.

The principal New Testament textual base is Nestle-Aland(27) (s. N. at the beginning of List 1). Some of the words appearing in BDAG are not noted in the apparatus of that edition. Frequent account is taken of variant readings which are not recorded in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. Thus the word gene,qlioj appears Mk 6:21 in codex D, and is so noted in BAAR, but not in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. Although some words, such as avkaqa,rthj or na,rkh, would not ordinarily merit attention, either because they are editorial inventions which have wormed their way into respected editions without strict accounting (e.g., some Erasmian readings) or are the result of erroneous restoration of a fragmentary text, their appearance in learned discussions requires identification with cautionary notice in this lexicon. Since little advantage is to be gained by cluttering the lexicon with an unscientific collection of selected manuscript sigla, users of the lexicon are encouraged to find the sources for such variants in earlier editions of Nestle, in Tischendorf (s. Tdf. at the beginning of List 1), or in other critical editions. For related reasons I have not included in citation of text the brackets used in many passages in Nestle-Aland.
It says, "the principal New Testament textual base is Nestle-Aland (27)." Yet again, there is a big difference. But even that doesn't matter. They didn't quote the initial part of the text because they weren't discussing it. It's as simple as that.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I didn't ask about what you believe, though I know that is the only criteria that matters to you. I asked if you were admitting that you didn't know the difference between the two statements. You implied that you didn't.
I’m not so sure that there is a difference between the two statements. That’s why I’m asking you to point out the apparent difference.

Stop making so much noise, just answer the question.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You're not sure there is a difference. So that's an admission that you don't know, correct?

Saying I'm not sure there is a difference, is not to admit that I don't know of a difference, only that there does not seem to be a difference. If however you provide me a good and compelling reason to show that there is indeed a difference, then I will be able to admit that there was a difference I didn't know about. You seem to not have been blessed by wisdom.

Now stop making empty noise, just answer the question and be on your way.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Saying I'm not sure there is a difference, is not to admit that I don't know of a difference, only that I don't think there is a difference. If you provide me a good reason to show that there is indeed a difference, then I will honestly be able to admit that there was truly a difference but I didn't know it.
In other words, you don't currently perceive a difference. Right?
You seem to not have been blessed by wisdom.
Says the man who can't discern whether or not a plain statement is true.
Now stop making empty noise, just answer the question and be on your way.
You'll get your answer, but you'll get it on my terms.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
When one makes a claim, they should be able to support it without preconditions ( imagined or otherwise) or without prejudice, when asked to do so. Because the claim is theirs. But since you are an empty barrel, I wasn’t expecting anything from you , apart from noise. So no surprise.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
When one makes a claim, they should be able to support it
Agreed.
without preconditions ( imagined or otherwise) or without prejudice, when asked to do so.
I don't owe you anything. If I explain it to you, it's a gift. If you aren't capable of evaluating the claim for yourself, you don't deserve the gift. To earn it, answer the questions, or do your own legwork.
Because the claim is theirs. But since you are an empty barrel, I wasn’t expecting anything from you , apart from noise. So no surprise.
I'm tired of carrying you and Roger around.
 
Top