John 1:4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

[The Real John Milton]

The Greek in the thread title translates to "That which came into existence in it/him was life."

Now, what is the difference in meaning between that English translation and "Life is that which came into existence in it/him" or "Life came into existence in it/him" or "Life is what came into existence in it/him" ? In my opinion, NOTHING . All these English sentences are saying essentially the same thing. Of course the grammatical construction of each of those English translations vary slightly, so that one translation uses a relative pronoun , the other does not, etc. But they all impart essentially the same meaning in English. Can anyone seriously argue against this ? If so I would like to hear from you especially.

Roger, your thoughts ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The Greek in the thread title translates to "That which came into existence in it/him was life."

Now, what is the difference in meaning between that English translation and "Life is that which came into existence in it/him" or "Life came into existence in it/him" or "Life is what came into existence in it/him" ? In my opinion, NOTHING . All these English sentences are saying essentially the same thing. Of course the grammatical construction of each of those English translations vary slightly, so that one translation uses a relative pronoun , the other does not, etc. But they all impart essentially the same meaning in English. Can anyone seriously argue against this ? If so I would like to hear from you especially.

Roger, your thoughts ?

I cannot find fault with it.

 

[John Milton]

The Greek in the thread title translates to "That which came into existence in it/him was life."

Now, what is the difference in meaning between that English translation and "Life is that which came into existence in it/him" or "Life came into existence in it/him" or "Life is what came into existence in it/him" ? In my opinion, NOTHING . All these English sentences are saying essentially the same thing. Of course the grammatical construction of each of those English translations vary slightly, so that one translation uses a relative pronoun , the other does not, etc. But they all impart essentially the same meaning in English. Can anyone seriously argue against this ? If so I would like to hear from you especially.

Roger, your thoughts ?

This has already been answered for you; I don't know why you started a new thread. But it is always nice to see you two "gentleman" displaying your "acumen."

 

[Roger Thornhill]

This has already been answered for you; I don't know why you started a new thread. But it is always nice to see you two "gentleman" displaying your "acumen."

By my reckoning in the prologue there are two kinds of Asyndeton in the prologue. One starts with ουτος and is a summary of the preceding clause. The rest all show a form of contrast. If verse 4 is not in that category it's the only one.


 ΦΝ New paragraph, new subject (7 instances)
 ΦS Summary of previous ΦΝ (3 instances)27
 ΦB Contrast like δε (but) (5 instances)
 ΦBI Φ οὐκ … αλλά; = not … but (2 instances)
 KA καὶ Add new subject to previous or add new information to
previous element. (2)
 ὅτι - Explanatory (2)

 

[The Real John Milton]

This has already been answered for you; I don't know why you started a new thread. But it is always nice to see you two "gentleman" displaying your "acumen."

Why do you lie so prolifically ? You have not answered it for me. In fact this is what you told me when I asked you to explain the difference in meaning between those statements:

The only people here, as far as I know, are you, Roger, and me. I already know what I mean, and the rest of you are too stupid. If any other person comes in here, I'll be glad to explain to them what I mean if they ask. If they are of average intelligence, though, they probably won't need me to.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Why do you lie so prolifically ? You have not answered it for me. In fact this is what you told me when I asked you to explain the difference in meaning between those statements:

Technically one can call anything an answer, even name-calling and temper tantrums.

A thought just occurred to me that explained his reluctance to answer. BDAG only has two categories of life after looking at all their sources. They are all the opposite of death. Living is the 'property' 'without with there would not be life.' That includes anything after Homer. The two categories are:

Physical life
Transcendent life

God and Christ both have "Transcendent life" and according to BDAG Christ received this from God and also the eternal life that believers get.

The fact that @John Milton won't answer this simple question is that neither of these is good for his position and if he has a nonstandard 1-off metaphorical definition it will just sound silly.

 

[John Milton]

I dealt with you both as you deserved in this thread: Asyndeton in John 1:1-4. I'm not doing it again here.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I dealt with you both as you deserved in this thread: Asyndeton in John 1:1-4. I'm not doing it again here.

You never addressed my comprehensive analysis of Asyndeton. You did take issue with a rendering of 1:4 that has since changed, so that criticism no longer applies.

Also, your attempt to refute the rendering is based on contextual comments and not grammar.

That has been refuted with what Eerdmans says is the understanding of Athanasius that the Word came to be from the Father (ie the beginning). You don't have to accept it but it is a valid understanding.

I just had an epiphany literally while writing this. You do have a good effect on me, friend.

What say we take εν αρχή as instrumental dative so that we have 'By means of the beginning the Word was.'?

Now that's nifty and may be why Athanasius saw the Word had his beginning but outside of time. It also explains the perfect in 1:4 and why it does not apply to 1:3.

I may just need to change my expository rendering for J 1.1a!

@The Real John Milton

 

[John Milton]

You never addressed my comprehensive analysis of Asyndeton. You did take issue with a rendering of 1:4 that has since changed, so that criticism no longer applies.

Also, your attempt to refute the rendering is based on contextual comments and not grammar.

That has been refuted with what Eerdmans says is the understanding of Athanasius that the Word came to be from the Father (ie the beginning). You don't have to accept it but it is a valid understanding.

I just had an epiphany literally while writing this. You do have a good effect on me, friend.

What say we take εν αρχή as instrumental dative so that we have 'By means of the beginning the Word was.'?

Now that's nifty and may be why Athanasius saw the Word had his beginning but outside of time. It also explains the perfect in 1:4 and why it does not apply to 1:3.

I may just need to change my expository rendering for J 1.1a!

Everything that needs to be said is in the other thread. If someone comes along thinking that either of you idiots knows what you are talking about, I'll intervene. Otherwise, feel free to continue to lie or say whatever stupid things you want to.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Everything that needs to be said is in the other thread. If someone comes along thinking that either of you idiots knows what you are talking about, I'll intervene. Otherwise, feel free to continue to lie or say whatever stupid things you want to.

You have no response for: By means of the beginning the Word was?

It's grammatical. It's contextual:

By means of the beginning the Word was and so the Word was with God...

 

[The Real John Milton]

“John Milton,” I would appreciate it if you would go trolling someone else. Leave this thread alone. Your input is not required nor appreciated. I’m interested in discussing this issue with the reasonable.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Does anyone agree with “John Milton” that the following English statements are saying something substantially different ? Although he refuses to tell us the apparent difference.

You only need to know English to answer this question, ofcourse. No Koine prerequisite. So all (reasonable) readers are welcome:

(1) "Life is that which came into existence in it/him"

VS

(2) "Life came into existence in it/him"

If you think (1) and (2) are saying something different, clearly explain the difference.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Does anyone agree with “John Milton” that the following English statements are saying something substantially different ? Although he refuses to tell us the apparent difference.

You only need to know English to answer this question, ofcourse. No Koine prerequisite. So all (reasonable) readers are welcome:

(1) "Life is that which came into existence in it/him"

VS

(2) "Life came into existence in it/him"

If you think (1) and (2) are saying something different, clearly explain the difference.

I don't think he does. I think he objected because originally you did not include the relative pronoun even tho orb that does. It make a lick of difference.

 

[John Milton]

Does anyone agree with “John Milton” that the following English statements are saying something substantially different ? Although he refuses to tell us the apparent difference.

You only need to know English to answer this question, ofcourse. No Koine prerequisite. So all (reasonable) readers are welcome:

(1) "Life is that which came into existence in it/him"

VS

(2) "Life came into existence in it/him"

If you think (1) and (2) are saying something different, clearly explain the difference.

Neither option 1 nor option 2 is an accurate translation of the Greek text.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Neither option 1 nor option 2 is an accurate translation of the Greek text.

However "By means of the beginning the Word was" is an accurate translation of John 1:1a.

 

[John Milton]

However "By means of the beginning the Word was" is an accurate translation of John 1:1a.

In your imagination, nowhere else.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

In your imagination, nowhere else.

There is not one grammatical problem with it. It is just as literal as "In the beginning the Word was."

 

[Roger Thornhill]

In your imagination, nowhere else.

It also dispatches your objection to the perfect in 1:4 and your problem with two creation events. It's, well, perfect!

 

[John Milton]

It also dispatches your objection to the perfect in 1:4 and your problem with two creation events. It's, well, perfect!

It's proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Neither option 1 nor option 2 is an accurate translation of the Greek text.

This post is not for your benefit but for the readers in general. Both options (2) and (1) are indeed valid translations of the Greek text. Another valid translation of the Greek text would be to write it out as follows, option (3):

“That which came into existence in it/him was life.”

Now take a look at option (2):

“Life is that which came into existence in it/him.”

If you don’t think options (3) and (2) above are saying the same thing , then your English is poor. That’s all.