Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

John Milton

Well-known member
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
You don't have an answer for why your "rule" about the placement of the adverb fails in Luke 19:5. You can't just assume that an adverb must fall in a certain location and then make a "rule" around it as you have done. Until you have an explanation for that, you can't explain what's going on in a passage like Matthew 21:28 "Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο. καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι." All you will do is assume it fits your rule.
I never said it was illegitimate, just that the word order and statistics of usage in the NT/GNT are evidence against that view.
You most certainly did say it was illegitimate, because your "rule" says "always" in both articulations.
Roger Thornhill said:
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.
I saw what Carl said about syntax and nothing he said contradicts what I said.
Yes, it did. As I showed you above, your "rule" allows no other possibility, but Carl does.
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.
You didn't ask about context as far as I can tell. Perhaps that's what you meant.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You don't have an answer for why your "rule" about the placement of the adverb fails in Luke 19:5. You can't just assume that an adverb must fall in a certain location and then make a "rule" around it as you have done. Until you have an explanation for that, you can't explain what's going on in a passage like Matthew 21:28 "Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο. καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι." All you will do is assume it fits your rule.

I am not attempting to make a rule for the reason for the placement of the adverb when it does not directly follow it's verb.

What I have done is to observe that when it does directly follow a verb it always modifies that verb when grammatically possible.

I have found no exceptions. Luke 19:5 is not an exception as it is first in it's clause to γαρ.

I explained this before and you did not disagree with that assessment, but you did complain that I always have an answer.

You most certainly did say it was illegitimate, because your "rule" says "always" in both articulations.

See above. You should quote me completely.

Yes, it did. As I showed you above, your "rule" allows no other possibility, but Carl does.

You didn't ask about context as far as I can tell. Perhaps that's what you meant.

I did ask you about context today. It's on record.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
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 never said it was illegitimate, just that the word order and statistics of usage in the NT/GNT are evidence against that view.




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.
It always amazes me how complicated people can make a straightforward text to make it fit their theological preferences. To repeat, σήμερον is to be taken with the following text because it's outside the stock phrase. Yes, it's fronted for emphasis. A lot of nonsense in the thread from the ancient days of B-Greek. Carl was too easily persuaded on this, as I thought he was on other issues as well.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
was
It always amazes me how complicated people can make a straightforward text to make it fit their theological preferences. To repeat, σήμερον is to be taken with the following text because it's outside the stock phrase. Yes, it's fronted for emphasis. A lot of nonsense in the thread from the ancient days of B-Greek. Carl was too easily persuaded on this, as I thought he was on other issues as well.

If Luke 23:43a has a change in word order, what is the "stock phrase"? It's a set of 1?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I am not attempting to make a rule for the reason for the placement of the adverb when it does not directly follow it's verb.
Lol. Are you not even able to identify the relevant information I underlined for you in verse I just cited?!
What I have done is to observe that when it does directly follow a verb it always modifies that verb when grammatically possible.
I know. That why I said Carl would disagree with your rule because he says that the other rendering is possible. Why aren't you able to understand this?
I have found no exceptions. Luke 19:5 is not an exception as it is first in it's clause to γαρ. I explained this before and you did not disagree with that assessment, but you did complain that I always have an answer.
If gar wasn't there, you would just assume that it fit your rule and deny any evidence to the contrary. What that verse conclusively demonstrates is that σήμερον is not restricted to the verb that precedes it. You don't have an explanation for this. Therefore, you don't have a way to know whether σήμερον in Mt. 21:28 is to be taken with the verb before or after it, unless you ASSUME that your "rule' is correct. Which is what you've done the entire time.

I've never complained that you always have an answer. Quite the contrary, you never have an answer for anything! You simply ignore the information that proves you wrong. It's the only play you have.
See above. You should quote me completely.
I did quote you completely. It's not my fault you can't understand. Carl could not affirm your rule and say that the other understanding is possible. You said "always." Go back and try to understand this. You are clearly wrong.
I did ask you about context today. It's on record.
You said nothing about context. That is clear from the record.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It always amazes me how complicated people can make a straightforward text to make it fit their theological preferences. To repeat, σήμερον is to be taken with the following text because it's outside the stock phrase. Yes, it's fronted for emphasis.
Right on all counts. It is this fronting that causes the phrase to end with the verb, which is itself somewhat unusual for that particular verb.

Civic's signature just reminded me of a good parallel. "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν"
A lot of nonsense in the thread from the ancient days of B-Greek. Carl was too easily persuaded on this, as I thought he was on other issues as well.
We all have our faults.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Lol. Are you not even able to identify the relevant information I underlined for you in verse I just cited?!

I know. That why I said Carl would disagree with your rule because he says that the other rendering is possible. Why aren't you able to understand this?

If gar wasn't there, you would just assume that it fit your rule and deny any evidence to the contrary. What that verse conclusively demonstrates is that σήμερον is not restricted to the verb that precedes it. You don't have an explanation for this. Therefore, you don't have a way to know whether σήμερον in Mt. 21:28 is to be taken with the verb before or after it, unless you ASSUME that your "rule' is correct. Which is what you've done the entire time.

I've never complained that you always have an answer. Quite the contrary, you never have an answer for anything! You simply ignore the information that proves you wrong. It's the only play you have.

I did quote you completely. It's not my fault you can't understand. Carl could not affirm your rule and say that the other understanding is possible. You said "always." Go back and try to understand this. You are clearly wrong.

You said nothing about context. That is clear from the record.
Now you have switched to Mt 21:28?

The imperative υπάγε frequently prefixes to another imperative with no conjunction (Thayer). It thus denotes a compound action here.

But even so, a literal rendering would be "Go today and work in the vineyard."

Some English renderings show this in English as "go and work in the vineyard today" showing that the adverb modifies both verbs. This the adverb is in second place but also in first place.

That's an interesting example. Thanks for introducing it.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Jesus performed the action because he is the subject of the finite verb "empty" and this is true regardless of what the direct object is, or even without a direct object. You don't need "himself" to be present to identify who does the emptying.

You also need an example that is parallel.

Wine is in a gold cup. There is also an empty wooden cup. Cindy empties the wine and then it is in a wooden cup. The gold cup is now empty.

The gold cup is the form of God. The wooden cup is the form of a slave, a human baby.
That is nothing but speculation that you claim that you never do.

The form of God had nothing to do with a change in his ontology or his being as if he was first a celestial being and then became a terrestrial being, for Paul is speaking of a mind set and attitude that we as human beings are suppose to follow and there is no way that we can change ourselves from being humans to being something else.

Furthermore, the name and title of Jesus Christ was given unto a human being and so Paul begins everything he says as referring to a human being who was given the name and title of Jesus Christ.

Therefore Paul never spoke of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actual ontology but rather as a man in regards to his position of authority from God and who began his existence "huparchon" from birth in the form of God and therefore was unlike any other man before or after him.


This is why when Paul says that he emptied himself and took the form of a servant, he by this in regards to his position with God, was made in the likeness of men.

Notice, Paul never says that Jesus became a man anywhere in the text but rather that he became like "homoiomai" men by taking the form of a servant in his attitude and while in his position with God and authority from God, he was superior to any other man before or after him.


The perfect example of this is when on the night of his arrest, he washed the disciples feet and said unto them, "you call me Lord and Master and you are right, for that is what I am and therefore if I being your Lord and master wash your feet, then you ought to wash one another's feet also" and thus "Let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus".

The mind set and attitude was in the man who was given the name and title Jesus Christ and not in some celestial being that he was before becoming a man like you believe and whether it be Michael the archangel or some other.
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
That is nothing but speculation that you claim that you never do.

The form of God had nothing to do with a change in his ontology or his being as if he was first a celestial being and then became a terrestrial being, for Paul is speaking of a mind set and attitude that we as human beings are suppose to follow and there is no way that we can change ourselves from being humans to being something else.

Furthermore, the name and title of Jesus Christ was given unto a human being and so Paul begins everything he says as referring to a human being who was given the name and title of Jesus Christ.

Therefore Paul never spoke of Jesus as anything other than a man in regards to his actual ontology but rather as a man in regards to his position of authority from God and who began his existence "huparchon" from birth in the form of God and therefore was unlike any other man before or after him.


This is why when Paul says that he emptied himself and took the form of a servant, he by this in regards to his position with God, was made in the likeness of men.

Notice, Paul never says that Jesus became a man anywhere in the text but rather that he became like "homoiomai" men by taking the form of a servant in his attitude and while in his position with God and authority from God, he was superior to any other man before or after him.


The perfect example of this is when on the night of his arrest, he washed the disciples feet and said unto them, "you call me Lord and Master and you are right, for that is what I am and therefore if I being your Lord and master wash your feet, then you ought to wash one another's feet also" and thus "Let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus".

The mind set and attitude was in the man who was given the name and title Jesus Christ and not in some celestial being that he was before becoming a man like you believe and whether it be Michael the archangel or some other.
Newsflash- when that poster agrees with you its a guarantee your position is wrong and its actually just the opposite of what your claimed in your post. :)

You do not even know how to read and translate Greek into English so who are you trying to fool ?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Newsflash- when that poster agrees with you its a guarantee your position is wrong and its actually just the opposite of what your claimed in your post. :)

You do not even know how to read and translate Greek into English so who are you trying to fool ?
ROFLOL, since when is the truth of God determined by what another person agrees or disagrees with another on?

You know, it is also quite amusing to me how all of that knowledge that you think that you have, has not revealed to you that one is not led into all truth from the written scriptures by the witness of the Greek and Hebrew grammars but rather by the witness of what the Holy Spirit reveals to the believer and just like Jesus said.

For one can know absolutely nothing of Greek or Hebrew himself but if he is truly saved and born again, God is able through his Holy Spirit to lead him to the truth of the scriptures far beyond what others attempt through their haughty and puffed up human research done through the flesh.

I don't need to know the Greek or the Hebrew, for God knows it and he knows what he intended for the scriptures to say and mean also and therefore God is able to lead me to any resource necessary in order for me to get a correct understanding of the meaning and grammar of the words and he does it also.

Like for instance, what a word is translated to mean in the many places it is used in the NT and like the word "huparchon" translated as either "existing or being" in Philippians 2:6, for what this word can and cannot mean is clearly revealed by how it is translated in the 60 times it appears in the NT.


For what the word is translated to mean in the 60 times it is used, reveals that it never refers to anything eternal and even when it is used in Acts 17:24 and 17:27 for God, it is only used of him in regards to what he began to be after he created the heavens and earth and also man upon it.

For if in Acts 17:24, Paul only said "For God is "huparchon" Lord" period, trins might have a cogent argument that the word can refer to eternal existence in this case but Paul didn't say this but rather that "God is Lord OF heaven and earth" and being heaven and earth only began to exist after God created it, then neither could God have been the Lord of it from all eternity dude.

You probably read this for years and never even thought of that, for I was that way also when I was still a sucker for your doctrine, for that is what happens when one is led by the flesh and not by the Spirit.

The same situation appears also in Acts 17:27 when Paul says, "for God is "huparchon" not far from any of us" for until God created us, there was no us for him to eternally be not far from and so once again, the word "huparchon" is only used of things that have a beginning of existence.

You are not even astute enough with all of your flesh knowledge to wonder why if the word "huparchon" really referred to eternal existence, that it wasn't used of God in any other passages except for Acts 17:24 and 27.

Why then if Paul really wanted to reveal that Jesus pre existed his birth as a man in Philippians 2:6 , did he not use the Greek word "eimi", instead of "huparchon", for eimi has nothing within its proper definition to suggest a beginning of existence like "huparchon" clearly does and therefore only the context determines either eternal or temporal existence with this word?

Acts 17:24-27

New International Version

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

So then, as is clearly seen by the way Paul used this word in the above verses, that the word doesn't refer to God eternally existing as Lord of heaven and earth, nor of him existing not far from any of us, unless of course ones false doctrine has made him into a bone head simpleton.

For God first created heaven and earth to become Lord of it and Paul actually even says this in the very first sentence of the verse and the same goes for verse 27 also, for God first created man before he could exit as not far from any man.

So are you finally getting the picture now professor?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Newsflash- when that poster agrees with you its a guarantee your position is wrong and its actually just the opposite of what your claimed in your post. :)

You do not even know how to read and translate Greek into English so who are you trying to fool ?

He seems to be able to do that better than you can.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
That’s not saying much about yourself since I’m better than you milky. 😂
Nay but all you are is a bunch of hot air Civic.

By the way, do you have any idea what the Bible says about one comparing himself to another?

Therefore your statement above only reveals how arrogant you really are Civic.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Now you have switched to Mt 21:28?

The imperative υπάγε frequently prefixes to another imperative with no conjunction (Thayer). It thus denotes a compound action here.

But even so, a literal rendering would be "Go today and work in the vineyard."

Some English renderings show this in English as "go and work in the vineyard today" showing that the adverb modifies both verbs. This the adverb is in second place but also in first place.

That's an interesting example. Thanks for introducing it.
@John Milton
Thanks for helping me with the paper. In the entire corpus of LXX/NT for σημερον there were only a couple that are ambiguous and when you brought them up I was able to find more relevant grammatical resources.

Now they are no longer ambiguous.

;)
 
Top