Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
.

:ROFLMAO: I'm sure you can make the claim, but it would be false. If "today" were moved, it would be before the verb it goes with. You wouldn't move it to the front to show that it goes with the previous verb. Your ignorance is showing again.

I don't suggest anything was moved. The words were chosen carefully so that the adverb was in second place to it's verb.

This naturally pairs the verb and adverb together.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
What have you published that you are aware of them? Note, BTW, that BeDuhn chose a publisher that essentially allows self publishing. Why didn't he deliver his work to a normal academic publisher and submit to peer review? I think we know why.

Irrelevant. The comparison is between you and BeDuhn. You claim to be a credentialed academic just like BeDuhn, don't you ? Yet you have never published anything, nor contributed something to the field of biblical studies.

Maligning actual scholars like BeDuhn over the internet and proffering bizarre interpretations of John 1:1etc. is a sad substitute for actual scholarship, which requires a lot of hard work and determination.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
he has not and cannot publish anything and said person was guilty numerous times on the old forum of plagiarism.
That's rich since you are the only one between the both of us who publicly "repented" of plagiarism (Jimmy Swaggard like) ; and that only after you were caught by me. The following comes to my remembrance:

τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς;
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I talked about the pronoun and the verb.

I said:


In the majority of the examples, the Greek word order is ‘Truly I say to you…’ but at Luke 23:43 it is ‘Truly to you I say today…’ This may seem like a minor difference, but it is not. This is because in Greek, an adverb regularly takes “second place” (BDF, 1961) to the verb. In Luke 23:43 this means that Jesus said “to you I say[1] today[2]” where the adverb “today” modifies the verb rendered “say.” According to BDF the adverb is normally found in second place to the verb.

BDF says:
The position of nouns and adverbs. … (2) An adverb which further defines an adjective (or verb) also takes second position 10 (BDF §474, 1961)

Get it now? Bowman never disputed BDF and his argument based on what seemed overwhelming evidence from the English alone turned into a desperate attempt to prove that even though the majority of similar uses of σήμερον was really decisive that a few exceptions from other adverbs provided a slight chance for Luke 23:43. He went from offense to defense in a hurry.

So my final rule still stands:

When the Greek adverb σήμερον takes second position to a verb in a separate sentence of direct discourse21 it always further modifies the verb in the first position, without exception, in the corpus of the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament.22

Or, simply: When σήμερον follows a verb in Koine where Greek syntax allows for it to modify23 the verb it follows, it always does.

That is an excellent point !
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't suggest anything was moved. The words were chosen carefully so that the adverb was in second place to it's verb.

This naturally pairs the verb and adverb together.
Of course, you didn't. You said, "you could claim the word order was changed." None of this changes the fact that you made up a "rule" to try to force the text to mean what it doesn't mean.

What is your explanation for the clause initial position of the adverb highlighted here? Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι.
I can claim the word order was changed to make it clear that "today" goes with what directly precedes it as is the case in the vast majority of instances.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Of course, you didn't. You said, "you could claim the word order was changed." None of this changes the fact that you made up a "rule" to try to force the text to mean what it doesn't mean.

I made up no rule. It's a description of the cumulative evidence from the NT and LXX.


What is your explanation for the clause initial position of the adverb highlighted here? Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι.

I don't need an explanation as it does not impact the summary evidence from the NT and LXX for the way σημερον is used.

If it did I could say all but one fit my summary. But I don't need to do that because this is the best Bowman could come up with. I don't know why you think it impacts my conclusion.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I made up no rule. It's a description of the cumulative evidence from the NT and LXX.
You don't know Greek, so you can't possibly understand the evidence. If you didn't make it up, who is your source?
What is your explanation for the clause initial position of the adverb highlighted here? Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι.


I don't need an explanation as it does not impact the summary evidence from the NT and LXX for the way σημερον is used.
Why don't you need an explanation for it? It is an instance that does not fit your made-up rule.
If it did I could say all but one fit my summary. But I don't need to do that because this is the best Bowman could come up with. I don't know why you think it impacts my conclusion.
You can say anything you want about your made-up rule. It still won't be true. It was created to justify a grammatical impossibility.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You don't know Greek, so you can't possibly understand the evidence. If you didn't make it up, who is your source?

I looked at every instance of σημερον in the LXX/NT to find an exception to BDF's comment about the adverb taking second place. I wrote it up and Robert Bowman was kind enough to proof-read it and look for exceptions. He thought he could find one and after I modified it twice he could not find anything.



Why don't you need an explanation for it? It is an instance that does not fit your made-up rule.

No it's not an exception. The last change to my paper was:

When σήμερον follows a verb in Koine where Greek syntax allows for σήμερον to modify the verb it follows, it always does.

Your example does not break this rule. There are no more. This was tested for years off and on.

You can say anything you want about your made-up rule. It still won't be true. It was created to justify a grammatical impossibility.

It's just a summary of what's in the NT/LXX.

I just called it a rule to get a rise out of Bowman. Looks like it worked on you too.

;)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I looked at every instance of σημερον in the LXX/NT to find an exception to BDF's comment about the adverb taking second place. I wrote it up and Robert Bowman was kind enough to proof-read it and look for exceptions. He thought he could find one and after I modified it twice he could not find anything.
So you admit you custom created this "rule" to give you the illusion of a grammatical argument. That's cute.
No it's not an exception. The last change to my paper was:

When σήμερον follows a verb in Koine where Greek syntax allows for σήμερον to modify the verb it follows, it always does.
Lol. There is no "rule," Roger. Besides this, as I already told you, you haven't looked at the other words which should follow the "rule" if it were a real thing or at Greek sources outside the NT/LXX. You don't have the skills necessary to even understand what is said to you.
Your example does not break this rule. There are no more. This was tested for years off and on.
There is no rule.
It's just a summary of what's in the NT/LXX.

I just called it a rule to get a rise out of Bowman. Looks like it worked on you too.

;)
You still don't realize the wisdom in what you have been told: you are trying to prove that sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So you admit you custom created this "rule" to give you the illusion of a grammatical argument. That's cute.

Lol. There is no "rule," Roger. Besides this, as I already told you, you haven't looked at the other words which should follow the "rule" if it were a real thing or at Greek sources outside the NT/LXX. You don't have the skills necessary to even understand what is said to you.

There is no rule.

You still don't realize the wisdom in what you have been told: you are trying to prove that sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.
It's a lot like the joke about how fast one needs to run to escape from an attacking bear. One just needs to run faster than their hiking partner.

The reason for the paper was to show how Bowman's use of English versions to create a "rule" for an alleged stock expression was fallacious.

The fallacy is refuted and the bear is no longer hungry.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It's a lot like the joke about how fast one needs to run to escape from an attacking bear. One just needs to run faster than their hiking partner.

The reason for the paper was to show how Bowman's use of English versions to create a "rule" for an alleged stock expression was fallacious.

The fallacy is refuted and the bear is no longer hungry.
I don't know anything about Bowman, and I haven't been talking about him. So I don't know the purpose of those remarks. It sounds like you are trying to say that you did something dumb to prove that someone else did something dumb. Is that right?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't know anything about Bowman, and I haven't been talking about him. So I don't know the purpose of those remarks. It sounds like you are trying to say that you did something dumb to prove that someone else did something dumb. Is that right?
@Gryllus Maior repeated the same Bowman argument, so it was worth it. I intentionally stopped half way through my description to see if he would take the bait and he did.

Did I just say that out loud?

:)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You said:
You still don't realize the wisdom in what you have been told: you are trying to prove that sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.

That's what BDF is for. I merely confirmed it for the specific adverb σημερον in biblical Greek.

If taken in the following clause do you take it literally? I remember when Carl Conrad changed his view on B-Greek.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You said:
You still don't realize the wisdom in what you have been told: you are trying to prove that sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.

That's what BDF is for. I merely confirmed it for the specific adverb σημερον in biblical Greek.
BDF didn't come up with or endorse your made-up rule. Besides, you have demonstrated your eagerness to ignore BDF when it provides answers you don't like.
If taken in the following clause do you take it literally? I remember when Carl Conrad changed his view on B-Greek.
I note in Carl's remarks that he would disagree with your "rule" since he believes "that it is grammatically--syntactically--legitimate to understand SHMERON with the clause following it."

It's unusual for you to cite a hostile witness, unless you don't realize that's what you've done....
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
BDF didn't come up with or endorse your made-up rule. Besides, you have demonstrated your eagerness to ignore BDF when it provides answers you don't like.
My rule is specific to how σημερον is used in the LXX/GNT and confirms the general description from BDF.

As for fronting, I am fine with their view that putting the pronoun before the verb shows emphasis. Both this and the preferred word order for the adverb can be true at the same time. I don't see that as a problem unless you think that fronting the pronoun is done at the expense of the adverb and view them as mutually



I note in Carl's remarks that he would disagree with your "rule" since he believes "that it is grammatically--syntactically--legitimate to understand SHMERON with the clause following it."
I never said it was illegitimate, just that the word order and statistics of usage in the NT/GNT are evidence against that view.


It's unusual for you to cite a hostile witness, unless you don't realize that's what you've done....

I saw what Carl said about syntax and nothing he said contradicts what I said.

I quoted him for the context and that is what I asked you about, if you recall. Your generally all over the context and your silence on this speaks to the matter.
 
Top