singular substantive +to be verb + πρὸς + accusative singular substantive

[The Real John Milton]

Never denotes a person to be with another person in the GNT or the LXX. In other threads I have already given examples of this construction with the to be verb ἐγένετο. But for some not very good reasons the Trinitarian and JW posters demand εἰμί or forms of it. So here goes, to start with:

οὐκ ἔστιν σοφία οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνδρεία οὐκ ἔστιν βουλὴ πρὸς τὸν ἀσεβῆ

Proverbs 21:30

Notice the identical grammatical syntax to John 1:1b.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Couldn't resist this:

Isaiah 38:4 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν

 

[Gryllus Maior]

How long will you continue to peddle this nonsense? Prov 21:30 is quite interesting, however as having quite a different reading in the Hebrew than the Greek

לְנֶגֶד יהוה

"Against the Lord."

Isa 38:4, "And the word of the Lord came to Isaiah."

 

[The Real John Milton]

How long will you continue to peddle this nonsense? Prov 21:30 is quite interesting, however as having quite a different reading in the Hebrew than the Greek

לְנֶגֶד יהוה

"Against the Lord."

Isa 38:4, "And the word of the Lord came to Isaiah."

Deal with the LXX Greek at Prov. 21:30.


Also, since you argue that the expression γίνομαι and πρὸς is interchangeable with ἔρχομαι and πρὸς in the LXX, can you show me an example from the LXX where this is clearly the case ? So for example where γίνομαι and πρὸς is used to say that someone came towards ?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Deal with the LXX Greek at Prov. 21:30.


Also, since you argue that the expression γίνομαι and πρὸς is interchangeable with ἔρχομαι and πρὸς in the LXX, can you show me an example from the LXX where this is clearly the case ? So for example where γίνομαι and πρὸς is used to say that someone came towards ?

Why would you need any other example?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Never denotes a person to be with another person in the GNT or the LXX. In other threads I have already given examples of this construction with the to be verb ἐγένετο. But for some not very good reasons the Trinitarian and JW posters demand εἰμί or forms of it. So here goes, to start with:


Proverbs 21:30

Notice the identical grammatical syntax to John 1:1b.

You have been interpreting the BDAG gloss of προς τινα ειναι as if it were τινα προς τινα ειναι.

It's not. The first term which is the subject is not specific to number, only the accusative object of προς.

The BDAG examples do have the accusative object as singular, but not the subject that is προς τινα.

In your example of Jeremiah with against the "inhabitant" that is the "rock" is shown in that verse to be plural and is not a singular person. "Inhabitant" is not semantically singular.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You have been interpreting the BDAG gloss of προς τινα ειναι as if it were τινα προς τινα ειναι.

It's not. The first term which is the subject is not specific to number, only the accusative object of προς.

The BDAG examples do have the accusative object as singular, but not the subject that is προς τινα.

Correct, which is why it is deceptive since it only takes part of the construction (at least at John 1:1b and 1 John 1:2) to say something about the whole. That is one reason why it is a second rate Lexicon IMHO.

In your example of Jeremiah with against the "inhabitant" that is the "rock" is shown in that verse to be plural and is not a singular person. "Inhabitant" is not semantically singular.

This is a wrong and lazy comment. Also not sure where you are getting "rock" from. Here is the verse:

Jer 21:13 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα Σορ τὴν πεδινὴν τοὺς λέγοντας τίς πτοήσει ἡμᾶς ἢ τίς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς τὸ κατοικητήριον ἡμῶν

Notice σὲ, the form of the pronoun, it is singular. There is no way this can be construed as a plural. So both substantives are singular. Here a specific dweller of the valley (singular person) is highlighted, perhaps because they are all apparently cut off from the same cloth. Regardless of the reason, σὲ is not a plural. NASB has a good translation:

Behold, I am against you (singular) who dwell above the valley, atop the rocky plateau—declares the LORD—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our dwellings?”

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Correct, which is why it is deceptive since it only takes part of the construction (at least at John 1:1b and 1 John 1:2) to say something about the whole. That is one reason why it is a second rate Lexicon IMHO.



This is a wrong and lazy comment. Also not sure where you are getting "rock" from. Here is the verse:




Notice σὲ, the form of the pronoun, it is singular. There is no way this can be construed as a plural. So both substantives are singular. Here a specific dweller of the valley (singular person) is highlighted, perhaps because they are all apparently cut off from the same cloth. Regardless of the reason, σὲ is not a plural. NASB has a good translation:

Σορ (Heb. rock)

The Hebrew calls the inhabitants "O Rock."

And in Hebrew parallelism the "inhabitant" is semantically plural. The translation in the LXX is just following the Hebrew for σε.

In Greek the ήμας refers to σε.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Σορ (Heb. rock)

The Hebrew calls the inhabitants "O Rock."

And in Hebrew parallelism the "inhabitant" is semantically plural. The translation in the LXX is just following the Hebrew for σε.

Nonsense, יֹשֶׁבֶת is singular, not plural. Even if you think there is "parallelism" here (which I do not) the singular יֹשֶׁבֶת does not become "semantically plural."

In Greek the ήμας refers to σε.

Pronouns don't "refer" to pronouns, let alone a plural pronoun to a singular one.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Nonsense, יֹשֶׁבֶת is singular, not plural. Even if you think there is "parallelism" here (which I do not) the singular יֹשֶׁבֶת does not become "semantically plural."



Pronouns don't "refer" to pronouns, let alone a plural pronoun to a singular one.

It does when they are in apposition.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Nonsense, יֹשֶׁבֶת is singular, not plural. Even if you think there is "parallelism" here (which I do not) the singular יֹשֶׁבֶת does not become "semantically plural."



Pronouns don't "refer" to pronouns, let alone a plural pronoun to a singular one.

Jer 21:13 Behold, I am against thee that dwellest in the valley of Sor; in the plain country, even against them that say, Who shall alarm us? or who shall enter into our habitation? (LXX)


New Living Translation
I will personally fight against the people in Jerusalem, that mighty fortress— the people who boast, “No one can touch us here. No one can break in here.

Good News Translation
You, Jerusalem, are sitting high above the valleys, like a rock rising above the plain. But I will fight against you. You say that no one can attack you or break through your defenses


In context, the “you” in singular applies to “Jerusalem” and not “someone” and so does not fit the BDAG gloss.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Jer 21:13 Behold, I am against thee that dwellest in the valley of Sor; in the plain country, even against them that say, Who shall alarm us? or who shall enter into our habitation? (LXX)


New Living Translation
I will personally fight against the people in Jerusalem, that mighty fortress— the people who boast, “No one can touch us here. No one can break in here.

Good News Translation
You, Jerusalem, are sitting high above the valleys, like a rock rising above the plain. But I will fight against you. You say that no one can attack you or break through your defenses


In context, the “you” in singular applies to “Jerusalem” and not “someone” and so does not fit the BDAG gloss.

I don't see your logic (bold above). Even if that were to be the case (which it isn't) ,we would still be dealing with the singular form of the verb. It would then mean that Jerusalem is poetically being identified as a single individual here. So the example would still be valid.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It does when they are in apposition.

Nonsense. Substantives in apposition must be adjacent to each other. What is really in apposition to σὲ is τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I don't see your logic (bold above). Even if that were to be the case (which it isn't) ,we would still be dealing with the singular form of the verb. It would then mean that Jerusalem is poetically being identified as a single individual here. So the example would still be valid.

No, it means that there is attraction from the singular noun that represents the House of David being addressed at Jeremiah 21:12, the same group being addressed in verse 13 with the singular pronoun.

If your theory is to be trusted you need an example that is really singular.

This is one reason that translation Greek cannot be used to formulate rules for native idiomatic Greek.

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, it means that there is attraction from the singular noun that represents the House of David being addressed at Jeremiah 21:12, the same group being addressed in verse 13 with the singular pronoun.

If your theory is to be trusted you need an example that is really singular.

This is one reason that translation Greek cannot be used to formulate rules for native idiomatic Greek.

That's ungrammatical nonsense. The pronoun is singular. The rest is, as they say, history.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

That's ungrammatical nonsense. The pronoun is singular. The rest is, as they say, history.

There is such a thing as a collective singular.

That's ungrammatical nonsense. The pronoun is singular. The rest is, as they say, history.

At Mt 2:6 O Bethlehem is addressed with σύ but is not a person. It's not "someone." At Jeremiah the House of David is treated the same way.

 

[The Real John Milton]

There is such a thing as a collective singular.


At Mt 2:6 O Bethlehem is addressed with σύ but is not a person. It's not "someone." At Jeremiah the House of David is treated the same way.

At Jeremiah, the House of David is not called σύ but the individual dwelling in the valley is, i.e. the valley dweller (τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα).

 

[The Real John Milton]

There is such a thing as a collective singular.


At Mt 2:6 O Bethlehem is addressed with σύ but is not a person. It's not "someone." At Jeremiah the House of David is treated the same way.

In Greek there is such a thing as a collective noun, and a neuter plural subject is considered a collective, but as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a singular form of the second person pronoun which is apparently "a plural pronoun" referring to a whole bunch of people. I need to see a serious grammatical argument.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

At Jeremiah, the House of David is not called σύ but the individual dwelling in the valley is, i.e. the valley dweller (τὸν κατοικοῦντα τὴν κοιλάδα).

Not according to the GNT.



Good News Translation
You, Jerusalem, are sitting high above the valleys, like a rock rising above the plain. But I will fight against you. You say that no one can attack you or break through your defenses

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not according to the GNT.



Good News Translation
You, Jerusalem, are sitting high above the valleys, like a rock rising above the plain. But I will fight against you. You say that no one can attack you or break through your defenses

Not an accurate translation. Look at the Greek grammar...