• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. M

    John 1:1

    So what? You shouldn't need a warning to force you to stop ignoring my points and to honestly engage my arguments.
  2. M

    John 1:1

    As I anticipated, you have ignored the content of my concerns only to continue to pedantically wax philological about thoroughly undermined misrepresentation of my position and capacity with the scholarship. You've abandoned all the points I've made that have disproven your claims, and are...
  3. M

    John 1:1

    Because it is used all the time in lexicography to mean exactly the same thing I use it to mean. The particular meaning becomes part of the lexicon. It becomes lexicalized. I really wish you would stop confusing your own ignorance for my tendentiousness. Through consistent use over time with...
  4. M

    John 1:1

    Exactly. It became lexicalized, as I said originally.
  5. M

    John 1:1

    Incorrect. "Armed military force" is a primary meaning given by Muraoka. Lust gives "army," "host." LSJ gives "forces of war." This is the meaning of the Hebrew "host." Again you're pontificating aimlessly just to try to obfuscate. You don't even know what point you're making anymore...
  6. M

    John 1:1

    No, I only listed one publication that was from a student of van der Merwe's. The others are a quite diverse crowd. Then why did you only manage to come up with a single publication from the field? Why did you insist that biblical studies remains ignorant of these twenty-year-old linguistic...
  7. M

    John 1:1

    Not really. Greek comprising constructs, vernacular, syntax, and grammar that were common elsewhere. If you’ve studied literal/free translation in the Septuagint, you’re aware of exactly what kinds of constructs indicate non-idiomatic Greek. “Besides me” is...
  8. M

    John 1:1

    Yes, the reference is spatial. It addresses the presence of additional cultic objects in the temple alongside the representation of YHWH, as well as YHWH’s cooperation with other deities in the process of the exodus. You would obviously do well to do some research related to the cultic...
  9. M

    John 1:1

    Well, we could list many, many, more: D. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 2001) D. J. A. Clines, "The Challenge of Hebrew Lexicography Today," in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (edited by A. Lemaire; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 87–98 C. H. J...
  10. M

    John 1:1

    "Greco-Roman" is a modern cultural designation, not an ethnic designation. These were Greek-speaking Jews living in Alexandria and her environs. They were active participants in the Greco-Roman culture, so they absolutely were "Greco-Romans." Yes, but you have to determine what the...
  11. M

    John 1:1

    And how, specifically, does it complicate the reading? The view of the astral bodies as beautiful adornments of the heavens is quite in line with the Greco-Roman worldview. Not according to the LSJ, nor any other lexicon I've found. Where are you getting the idea that it is "secondary"? This...
  12. M

    John 1:1

    I mean the use of aggelos to refer specifically to divine messengers became standardized within the lexicon. What does the translation technique of the translator of Judges happen to do with my comments? Again, how does this bear on my comments? I'm well aware of the issues involved with...
  13. M

    John 1:1

    True, but it's not difficult in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to identify entities understood by the authors to be divine messengers. That use of the term had become lexicalized well before the translation of the Septuagint.
  14. M

    John 1:1

  15. M

    John 1:1

    No, they were second tier deities. They were the offspring of the first tier deities, the king and queen of the cosmos. Angels were third tier servant deities. Please refer yourself to the paper I shared in relation to the question. There's quite an extensive discussion, with references, in...
  16. M

    John 1:1

    Some good points, but it should be noted that the "sons of God" from Job 38:7 (and Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1) were not identified with angels until the Greco-Roman period. I discuss this further here. By way of support for your comment about John 1:1, I would also...
  17. M

    YHWH, God of Edom?

    This is something I posted on my blog recently and then on another discussion board. Someone recommended I come check out this board. Hopefully this catalyzes some discussion. I’m doing some research related to the earliest history of the Israelite deity Yhwh, and I think some of the material...
  18. M

    LDS and KJV

    There is a BYU translation and commentary of the New Testament being produced right now, and there is talk of doing the same for the entire Bible a few years down the road. I personally find the KJV relies on inferior manuscripts and archaic dogmatism. If I don't translate the texts myself, I...
  19. M

    mormonism racist?

    I saw what Autodidact had to see in your post, and I thought I'd answer his question. If one interprets the 1949 statements as claiming the ban was official church doctrine, yes, it is wrong. It was never presented to the general assembly of the church for its approval (see the end of OD's 1 and...
  20. M

    Against AK4: Rev. 14:11 and Eternity

    A more accurate assessment would be, if I see references to outdated, obsolete, and incorrect scholarship I point it out. I'm not an amateur, so don't make the mistake of treating my argument as if I were. As I made quite clear, that's not what I'm arguing. I have explicitly stated that it...
Top