No one can come to me...

Sethproton

Well-known member
What is the correct way to use a semicolon?
The first way to use a semicolon is right between two independent clauses (which each have a subject and a predicate), with no other connecting words. You should use a semicolon in this way when you want to share related things that are different but equally important, in one sentence instead of two (or more), like this:

5. Semicolon definition is - a punctuation mark; used chiefly in a coordinating function between major sentence elements (such as independent clauses of a compound sentence)
https://useenglishwords.com/semicolon/
Yes. pretty simple to find. Of course the issue is they don't want to accept what the NASB translators are indicating about the meaning of the verse
You would think at the very least they would accept the truth and then just say they disagree with the translators choice
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The semicolon tells us they do not consider the last phrase subordinate, meaning it does not modify or complete the first phrase.

Okay, there are a number of communications problems here, which I will explain, although I'm sure seth doesn't care.

First, in my parsing, I was separating out conjunctions from (independent) clauses, as seen here:

John 6:44
“No one can come to Me (clause)
unless (conjunction)
the Father who sent Me draws him; (clause)
and (conjunction)
I will raise him up on the last day. (clause)

Now, some sources will combine the conjunction with the following clause, and refer to it as a "subordinate clause" in contrast with an "independent clause":

unless the Father who sent Me draws him; (subordinate clause)
and I will raise him up on the last day. (subordinate clause)

The search string seth gave was a link to Grammarly dot com (I'm not sure why he decided to play games, instead of being transparent and quoting what he found there, but that's seth:

"The most common use of the semicolon is to join two independent clauses without using a conjunction like and." (Grammarly)

Another source I found said this:

"In most compound sentences, the independent clauses are joined by a comma and a coordinating conjunction or a semi-colon ( ; )"

Now, both sources are saying the same thing, namely that if you wish to join to independent clauses, then there are two ways to do so, either use a comma and a conjunction, or ditch the conjunction and use a semicolon instead. But guess what? The NASB isn't following this rule, as it is using the semicolon in ADDITION to the conjunction, rather than using the semicolon INSTEAD of the conjunction.

Further, there is no semicolon in the underlying Greek text, so I'm not sure why we should be enslaved to stylistic choices of the translators. After all, seth might not be aware of this, but Paul frequently writes what would call "run-on sentences", and so many translators will break up one really long Greek sentence into multiple sentences, just to make things easier for the reader.

The second phrase, the subordinate one. explains how a person is able to come
The third, the independent one, explains what happens when a person comes

Wrong again.
The third one, the independent one, explains what happens when a person IS DRAWN.

John 6:44 “No one can come to Me
unless the Father who sent Me draws
him;
and I will raise
him up on the last day.

"him" (the one who is drawn)
"him" (the one who is raised up)

"him" = "him" = SAME "him".

And truly, Seth, if you knew ANYTHING at all about sentence diagramming, this would be obvious to you.
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Yes. pretty simple to find. Of course the issue is they don't want to accept what the NASB translators are indicating about the meaning of the verse
You would think at the very least they would accept the truth and then just say they disagree with the translators choice
NASBonlyist?
 
G

guest1

Guest
Yes. pretty simple to find. Of course the issue is they don't want to accept what the NASB translators are indicating about the meaning of the verse
You would think at the very least they would accept the truth and then just say they disagree with the translators choice
What part of the Greek NT has no punctuation in the original manuscripts don’t you understand?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes. pretty simple to find. Of course the issue is they don't want to accept what the NASB translators are indicating about the meaning of the verse

But "the NASB translators" AREN'T "indicating" anything.
YOU are the one putting words in their mouths.

And I dare say your (false) claims on their behalf are no more accurate than your claim that I was a "college professor".

You would think at the very least they would accept the truth and then just say they disagree with the translators choice

I don't disagree with the NASB.
I only disagree with YOUR assumptions about the NASB.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
What part of the Greek NT has no punctuation in the original manuscripts don’t you understand?
Yes, we all know there is no punctuation, that has already been discussed here.
You may have missed the point of this discussion, it is that the NASB is making a statement about the meaning of the text in the way they decide to punctuate.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Yes, we all know there is no punctuation, that has already been discussed here.
You may have missed the point of this discussion, it is that the NASB is making a statement about the meaning of the text in the way they decide to punctuate.
And it appears they have not followed the rules of the semicolon since they use it with a conjunction.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes, we all know there is no punctuation, that has already been discussed here.
You may have missed the point of this discussion, it is that the NASB is making a statement about the meaning of the text in the way they decide to punctuate.

So if there is a difference between (your interpretation of) the NASB, and the Greek, which one takes priority?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
And it appears they have not followed the rules of the semicolon since they use it with a conjunction.
Ok, so if you disagree with the NASB use of the semi-colon there, fine. Just don't pretend that a semi-colon does not indicate an independent clause, as opposed to what Theo claimed, a subordinate clause.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Ok, so if you disagree with the NASB use of the semi-colon there, fine. Just don't pretend that a semi-colon does not indicate an independent clause, as opposed to what Theo claimed, a subordinate clause.

I explained the communications problem to you.
But instead of acknowledging it, you simply wanted to continue arguing that you're right.
You don't care about God's truth at all, you only care about winning arguments and insulting posters.
 
G

guest1

Guest
I do understand punctuation and English syntax and grammar.
So if you have an example and a question, would be pleased to discuss it with you
You really have no business making any kind of grammar or punctuation comments in scripture. The reason why is you cannot even get the simple fact that the Bible says Jesus was Resurrected and is a man yet you deny both truths which are salvific . So if you cannot get salvation right then why should we believe anything else you say especially since you do not know what a present tense verb or participle means ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I do understand punctuation and English syntax and grammar.

No, Seth, you don't.
Over the years here, you've made about 15-20 errors, and when I challenged you on them, you refused to do so, and instead responded with the same condescending dodge of, "Go ask an English teacher you trust".

If you want to try to lecture people about "English syntax and grammar, you might want to start by buying an English textbook!

So if you have an example and a question, would be pleased to discuss it with you

Oh? So you think English syntax and grammar open for "discussion"?
 
Top