Posts by PetrW

24

A divorced single sistet

by TxNVSue2023 in

it was an opinion of someone that to be a divorced, single sister i. the organization was the lowest social standing you can have.

why are they dispised?

( what if was a scriptural divorce where husband cheated?

You mentioned one more important thing: whether the local congregation and its leadership have the right to interfere in marriage and solve its problems. Of course, we know the NT case where Paul writes about someone living with his father's wife and Paul's solution is very harsh...

But I want to make another point: should a Christian congregation be put in the position of having to resolve marital disputes? I don't think a Christian congregation should (ideally) have to deal with this, and other things, at all. But many will say that this is impossible. Yes, I affirm that. Sociology clearly demonstrates the patterns that arise in a formal group (starting with the "iron law of oligarchy" to the next...).

But if I stay on the plane of the Bible, I, for one, take my cue from this: Paul says the church is to care for widows over 60. What if - because of the war - many widows will be as young as 55? Are they to be told that they have to wait 5 more years? Or will there be no widows in that congregation - are they to "manufacture" a widow to fulfill the Bible's command at any cost? Probably not either. I understand the commands in the sense that Christians are to do so if such a situation arises - but if it doesn't, then they don't have to address it or even create such a situation.

The main way out of this, I see, is what the Lord said: if two or three come together in my name, I will be among them.

Two or three does not solve the lists of widows, it does not solve the question of whether a woman teaches or does not teach, whether she is veiled or shorn. They don't address the funding of the congregation - if they meet once a month, everyone can handle the fact that the two or three, go to the bathroom and flush. It's not 20 or 50 or 100 people and twice a week.

My "ecclesiology" is not against large churches. They have their place and their importance. But my point is that until the Lord, and he alone, begins to form a true church (note: many will come in my name...), then a "congregation" of two or three, will more easily avoid interfering with the marriage, of those two or three, in some quasi-judicial process. And again: not idealizing "two or three", just as destructive processes can occur there, as between 50...but between 50, it's only a matter of time before it starts.

24

A divorced single sistet

by TxNVSue2023 in

it was an opinion of someone that to be a divorced, single sister i. the organization was the lowest social standing you can have.

why are they dispised?

( what if was a scriptural divorce where husband cheated?

PetrW

@LeeMarsh

Very accurate. I have defined the formation of marriage for JWs as: Lord and sex. JWs are forced by a misunderstood command" "only in the Lord "* to seek their mate, only within the ranks of JWs. And especially at a younger age where erotic desires are very strong, this leads to marriages being formed between people who 1. should never have formed a marriage or 2. "in the world" would have divorced relatively painlessly and no third party i.e. JWs would have entered into it. The guarantee of a quality partner is not created just by nominal affiliation with a church.

The other thing, which you also capture well, is that there is always more fault to be found with women, especially when they are the initiators of divorce proceedings. In a curious sort of way, I know of a case of a marriage that originated within the ex-JWs-group**, but because the husband stopped providing emotional as well as material support (inadequately) to his wife and their two children together, the wife, after repeated complaints over several years, found another partner. I know from the narrative that she continued to accuse herself for a long time whether she had violated Christ's requirement about marriage and adultery...

My answer was that a marriage is only unlawful i.e. against Christ's requirements if it exists. And mere formal existence, does not prove actual existence. We know a lot about birthright from the Bible, and whether the firstborn is by birth or by fact is determined by circumstances that can change...

Back to the ex-JWs group: it too, with the "righteous anger" of a few members, got angry at the woman, and basically ended any contact...it was only after a few years, when it became really apparent that the ex-husband, was indeed neglecting his wife and children, and then continued to do so (not paying child support, although he could have), that some members of the ex-JWs turned around, and accepted the ex-ex-JWs back into their midst...

* The phrase "in the Lord" is associated with "thinking like the Lord", which does not necessarily lead to the life partner having to be a Christian. The NT uses the same phrase in the case of children, that they are to obey their parents "in the Lord". If the parents are not "in the Lord", do they not have to obey them?

** The debacle of the false prophecy of "1975" was the motive for the formation of this group that still exists today. I am not a member, but I know sporadically of their activities and views...

11

One True Religion

by mrquik in

is there one true religion?

applying jesus' identifying requirements, not one religion qualifies.

coming close doesn't count.

PetrW

There is a beautiful picture in John's Gospel of Peter going fishing with others...

It's night, they're working all the time, throwing the net right, left, paddling back and forth, and nothing. It is only at the dawn of the day, when Jesus comes and is near, that he calls to them, "Cast your net there, there are fish. There were so many that they began to count them.

To me, the implication is that at the end of the age, there will be a similar catch, but I notice that the fish lived long before that, hidden, wary, not giving much indication of where they were, because predators, there was nothing around. Both the fishermen and the fish didn't know about each other, or more accurately: the fish preferred to hide because of bad experiences...

So, in practice, I assume that there are simply many real fish out there, that sea of people around us, but that they are simply hidden. That they grow up, they have small fish, but they also die and wait for the voice of the Lord...

To conclude the fish theme: fish farms also breed fish, but...✌️😎

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

PetrW

In my search for how the Bible understands the terms expressing "time", I also, of course, came across the problem in Luke 23:43: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" I found here, an older discussion

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/110063/commatology-101

and this discussion, which I freely continue:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/235015/truly-say-you-amen-say-you-inferences-from-gospel-manner-speech

These discussions were and still are very thought-provoking. But to me, there is a missing answer, to the question, why did Jesus even say, "today you will be with him in Paradise"?

The NWT and other translations that put a comma after "today" do resolve the supposed(!) conflict, but in doing so they also devalue - in my opinion - the statement of Jesus. The comma after "today", makes Jesus' statement a trite statement... that Jesus was communicating "today", everyone knew that. The comma after "today" brings no additional information = a redundant message. (The variant reading according to NA 28, I do not take into account, however, it is interesting that this statement was understood eschatologically in some manuscripts, i.e. the "day" of the second coming).

For if Jesus wanted to express that the robber would be with him in Paradise, he could have said to him, " Verily I say unto thee, you will be with me in Paradise," and he did not need to use the adverb "σημερον" = "today." And if Jesus had wanted to emphasize a time, then it would have been offered to say: "Verily I say unto thee, in these hours/In this hour shalt thou be with me in Paradise". But he didn't use that term either. If he wanted to emphasize an eschatological age, then he could have said, "Verily I say unto thee, in the last days//at the end of the ages thou shalt be with me in Paradise." But even that statement is not there.

On the other hand, even the translations that commonly put a comma before "today" don't bring much clarity to Jesus' statement. Not only do they have a problem with what the JWs claim (but in my opinion, it's an artificially induced conflict), but the above criticisms that Jesus could have used some more precise time than "today" persist. He could have emphasized the speed or postponed the event to the end of the ages.

And for the record, the papyrological monuments relating to business life used even then, more than 2000 years ago, the same thing everyone knows in email communication: it is not enough for business partners to write "today" we are sending you this or that. Because, there can easily be a misunderstanding. That is why it is already preserved on papyri that they attached to the term σημερον what day it was in their calendar (e.g. one papyrus has: "today, which is the 19th" or another: "today, which is the 8th"). Jesus did not say this either: " Verily I say unto thee, today, which is the 14th, you will be with me in Paradise."

Classical lexica for NT Greek, e.g. Kittel's Theological Dictionary or Bauer etc., while they provide ample information on the concept of σημερον itself, I would divide this concept into 2 groups: 1. the literal meaning, in the sense of "today", as a civil time period (Kittel's TLNT: "the Jewish understanding of time works with the fact that the day begins with the evening" and 2. the abstract, time length "today", which expresses rather the relationship of God to the chosen people.

The line between those meanings is not sharp: The Septuagint often uses the term "until today"/"until now" when it expresses some condition that had occurred earlier and was still ongoing at the time of the writing of the text, see, e.g., Gen. 19:37, "he became the forefather of the Moabites until now." Again, the papyri: a letter is preserved which records the statement that "the olive groves bear abundant fruit to this day". This 'disclosure', where 'today' almost takes on the value of 'now', is thus well attested.

Since Kittel's TLNT already refers to "now" (νυν), it is possible to consider another special statement of Jesus Christ. In Mark 13:19 he says that there will be days of tribulation which have not been since the beginning of creation...until now and will not be. At the time Jesus utters this, no tribulation was taking place, in fact, He directly speaks of those days yet to come. So why does he use "now"? Not to mention that we know that the tribulation didn't occur until about 40 years later. One possible explanation would be that Jesus' "now" refers to a period of time that is, as it were, in the background.

As if he were a "vehicle" for the "now". This is attested, for example, in Paul in 2 Cor. 6:2, where Paul speaks of the present time and the present day "νυν καιρος... νυν ημερα".

Returning then to σημερον, the typical representative in the abstract, very long time span (see also the meaning of the Hebrew "yom" = "day") is the longer passage in Heb 3:1-4:11. Here σημερον figures as "today", as an epoch-spanning, God-resting day. Which coincides with the "infinitely varying" meaning of the Hebrew "yom" and especially the length of the creation day.

***

From this very brief description, two meanings suggest themselves to me: either Jesus meant the actual day (see e.g. Mk 14:30 : Verily I say unto thee, that thou, this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice") or some eschatological, timeless stretch.

While it's tempting to see some eschatological significance in Jesus' statement, and I'm not entirely giving it up, the closer context of Luke 23:43 and the parallel accounts suggest to me that Jesus was thinking of a literal day. I will explain.

First, a brief background. Jesus is nailed to the cross around 9am. He dies sometime around 3 pm. Gradually, through taunts, the robber learns about Jesus, that he healed, that he raised the dead, that he wanted to destroy the Temple, that he claimed to be the Son of God, that he claimed to be the Messiah, that he proclaimed a new age for the Jews, that he was proclaimed to be the King who had, somewhere, his kingdom... Before he dies, he already knows this, very much, and he begins to repent, he expresses that he fears God and blames it on the other thief... And then he turns to Jesus with a very specific request: Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.

The robber sees Jesus as the real King, his kingdom as real, not to mention that they both die on the cross. And so Jesus answers him: Verily I say unto thee, (as) today with me, (then) shalt thou be in Paradise.

Conclusion: so I understand "σημερον" = "today" in Luke 23:43 as expressing a shared experience, between Jesus and the thief, during those six hours or so. The phrase "μετ εμου" + the verb ειμι is found e.g. in Lk 15:31 but cf. also LXX 2 Sam 15:33! But as can be seen, the futurum ειμι in Lk 23:43 ("thou shalt"), when applied to σημερον, problematizes "today".

In my opinion, Jesus didn't want to make a promise that on that very day, the thief would be with him in Paradise, when he couldn't fulfill it (no matter how long he might still be dying), but he also didn't make the useless statement that he was telling him something "today" as the JWs understand the phrase. Nor, in my opinion, was he speaking of an eschatological "today", because according to John 9:4-5, Jesus' death ushers in an eschatological "twilight", late afternoon, corresponding also to the time when he physically dies. The light will still shine for a while in the form of Christians in the apostolic age, but before long, by the death of the last living apostle, John is already writing about the "last hour." Then comes the darkness, the age of Satan. The appointed times of darkness...

Jesus, in my opinion, was only emphasizing what they had experienced together for that day, and confirming to him that just as they were together that day, so together, they would also be in Paradise.

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

PetrW

@Vidqun

I agree with you, Vidqun. But I was concerned about two things: JWs claim to be the one true religion, and the textual passages chosen are constitutive of their theology.

The translations you cite that resemble the NWT do not explicitly seek to do so.

JWs do not think in alternatives. They don't give a chance to the fact that e.g. Ma 27:53 can have a fairly simple interpretation that fits the text: that there was a resurrection of some of the dead. And why don't they allow for alternatives? Because they are the only and true...

This system then manifests itself in all areas of their theology. They do not falsify the meaning of the Greek words (see the original question in the discussion), but project their theological interpretations onto the Greek text. No alternative.

But this phenomenon is common in other denominations as well. Adventists with their Sabbath, Catholics with their celibacy, or Pentecostals with their faith healing... they all "overload" the text in their favor...

***

Not to be critical of others. How about me? 🙈😁 Am I not doing the same? I may have an opinion on the identity of Babylon the Great (no, it's not the UN or any country or institution past or future in my opinion), but from time to time I have my doubts, sometimes literally dread lest I end up like Russell 😁 Okay, okay,

my views don't have nearly the reach that Russell's had. My verbal 😁 "Watchtower" that I occasionally put out, well that's just for my wife for now. And from her, it is always very quickly censored, abridged and rewritten... Because of warm dinners and laundered clothes, the potential for conflict on my part is almost nil. Discussion here, is one of the allowed activities 🙈😁😁😁

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

PetrW

There are many references to patristic texts in your text. However, you conspicuously omit/do not include a single quote from Irenaeus of Lyons and his extensive works. In his writings (Against All Heresies) the term πρωτοτοκος/primogenitus appears several times but it does nothing to support Trinitarian views. Are you familiar with those passages?

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

PetrW

@Blotty

Interesting thought. I don't think JWs intentionally change the meaning of words - although, I have found at least three examples where the NWT translation changes the meaning of sentences in favor of JW-theology. In hindsight, I would assess this as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the text. The motivation was either a misunderstanding of the meaning (example number 2) or an attempt to subjugate the text to the translation in favor of JW-theology, even though these texts (examples number 1 and 3) for relatively simple. I submit for discussion...

Example 1: the well-known passage from Matt 27:52-53, which the NWT translation - incomprehensibly - puts verse 53 even in parentheses. Yet the translation is quite clear, unproblematic in the sense that the "bodies" of the saints - after the resurrection of Jesus - so these saints entered the Holy City.

In the discussion with JWs, the counter-argument was repeated to me several times that even if they were resurrected, then what would they have been doing among the tombs for 3 days? My argument is that we don't know exactly what was going on with the resurrected "bodies"(!) for 3 days, what exactly were these people (were they naked, hungry and thirsty ? did the angels care to tell them they were only temporarily alive?), were doing, surely cannot be a reason to rewrite the text, change the meaning and try to reconcile the fact that this verse supposedly contradicts the claim that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead... he is, but Matt 27:52-53 does not dispute that he was the firstborn from the dead. In my opinion, Matt 27:52-53 was a small fulfillment of John 5:25 when the dead (some) heard Christ's final voice on the cross - that cry of his, and therefore came back to life. Again the same thing occurs later...

Example 2: In John 11:26, the translators were not clear about Jesus' statement about the dead and αιων, so they used the unfortunate and completely wrong translation that "he will never die," which is nonsense. Jesus was talking about the fact that the person who dies will not be dead (almost) indefinitely (that is the meaning of αιων), but that one day, after a very long time, the αιων will end and be resurrected. This is, after all, what Martha was telling Jesus, that her brother Lazarus would be resurrected on the last day, that is, at the end of the αιων.

Example 3: Rev. 20:5 and again the round brackets, as if the text were a sort of insertion. The text of Rev. 20:5 makes it perfectly clear that the first resurrection will occur before the 1000-year kingdom. Thus, all the pictures and texts in JW-literature about happy people being reunited after the resurrection during the 1000 year kingdom are false prophecy and a promise that will not be fulfilled.

Rev. 20:5 clearly and indisputably states: the rest of the dead will not be resurrected until after the end of the 1000 years of Christ's reign. The first resurrection concerns only those - in my opinion, and measured by the vast New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:15-17), where the gates are nearly 2,200 kilometers long - rulers and priests with Christ, and there will indeed be millions and millions of them, men and women, including the last 144,000 who, like the others, the millions, are among the 12 new tribes of the new Israel. Every living Christian ("...he hath an ear, hear...he that overcometh shall not suffer the second death" Rev. 2:11) has the chance and the right, to seek to be with Christ in heaven. And over the 2000 years - I believe - millions of people have succeeded.

Armageddon will be survived by the billions of people who will be on this planet. Survival is not just for some exclusive group of people in some church, but for all who will show basic humanity, or are they the ones who will ask, when have we seen you naked, in prison, sick, hungry or thirsty?

Conclusion: here's my interpretation of the twisted, incomplete Word of God: when Jesus hung on the cross, many began to mock Him. He was mocked by the people who stood around, the soldiers, and in the beginning, even the two criminals. We know from the Gospels that they mocked him for coming down from the cross, for saving himself, for saving others and not himself. They, in effect, repeated the entire gospel. They had plenty of time for that. Jesus had been dying for about six hours - and sometime in the afternoon, after those miracles with the darkness, one of the criminals, based on what he had heard and what he had seen, began to realize that he was indeed the King of the Jews. So he said, "Remember me when you are in your kingdom...

Thus even the corrupt, incomplete, weak word of God is stronger than the word of man (1 Cor. 1:25).

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.

i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.

ending), and she (fem.

PetrW

@Blotty

Still on Rev 12:5: I agree with you that ος refers to υιος (son). I have taken Rev 12:5 as evidence of typical incongruence in the strict grammatical sense as given by BDR.

But this grammatical phenomenon - also in Rev 12:5 - reaffirms the idea that the relational pronoun is defined by the governing word (υιος => ος // son => which) and not, conversely.

***

I look forward to stimulating studies/questions/searches ✌️😎 there are a lot of interesting topics here, but I'm short on time...

***

p.s. I wanted to contribute to the discussion regarding the "End Times" i.e. my take on the last days, last hour, time approaching etc.

p.p.s and for my part, an unfinished discussion, also on the Revelation and the identity of Babylon the Great... I would be interested in your opinion or that of others...

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.

i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.

ending), and she (fem.

PetrW

Just briefly on the dilemma...

***

A typical example is Filomen 10, where the word "child" in the middle gender is followed by a masculine reference pronoun, which often leads translators to change the meaning of "child" to "son"...

I've looked at the three main "Johannine" texts that Wallace discusses: 14:26; 15:26; and 16:13-14. In the standard NT grammar (BDR, 17th edition), little space is devoted to this phenomenon §296 and point 3) where, it says that the relational pronoun, need not correspond to the gender of the relational word (Gal. 4:19).

In the NT-grammar by Hoffmann/Siebenthal, §265 (general information only) and further reference is made to §289e/f where the "attraction of the relational pronoun" is described as follows: "The relational pronoun is often governed not only by the number and gender of the relational word, but also by the casus. One could say that the relational pronoun is "attracted" to the linguistic casus, or here: "straightened"/"assimilated", hence the talk of relational pronoun assimilation".

According to Hoffmann/Siebenthal,the reference pronoun is GOVERNED by the reference word. My understanding is that while the immediate context suggests "disagreement" (incongruence), it is inherently a misunderstanding of the written text. There is no factual incongruence (see BDR §136) - if I can find a matching number, casus or genus. The commentators on these passages seem to be trying to explain the opposite: that the relational pronoun DIRECTS the genus of the relational word (see Philomen 1:10 above), that it therefore determines, e.g., what genus the relational word is to have. But I'll come back to that. First, the three most cited texts in John.

In John 14:26 the reference word "παρακλητος" is masculine, so "εκεινος" is also masculine. As for the spirit, the following statement, "ο πεμψει," is a reference pronoun in the middle gender because it refers to the spirit (in the middle gender). The congruence is preserved.

If John 15:26 speaks of the coming of παρακλητος, then "ον" is masculine because it again refers to the masculine παρακλητος. And then, again, congruence is maintained: the spirit of truth has the subsequent ο (nominative neuter) because it refers to the spirit in the middle gender. Again, the congruence in gender is maintained.

The more complex text is then 16:13-14, but the immediate context of v.7 clarifies the use of the masculine: παρακλητος appears there again in the masculine, so the whole speech from v.8 onwards must be in the masculine. Vv. 13-14 is a repetition of the promise of παρακλητος's arrival in vv. 7 and 8. Again the consistency in gender is maintained.

This solves the problem for me: there is no incongruence in John, that is, the masculine being ascribed to the middle gender. In my view, the masculine gender ascribed to the masculine παρακλητος and the middle gender of πνευμα is retained.

But, if I go back to Philomen 1:10 (or to the example of John 6:9 or Luke 17:31 see BDR §296(3)), then it can be seen that there can be a sort of change of gender: the "child" in the middle gender becomes "son" by means of the masculine relative pronoun. The explanation, however, is very simple: whether Paul describes Onesimus as a child or a son, he is still Onesimus. I don't think anything changes.

I don't want to make light of it, though: the glaring disagreement, e.g. Rev 12:5 "she gave birth to a son (masculinum), (became) male (neutrum) who (masculinum)..." is deliberately written, and I think it has very serious implications theologically. The writer in the vision saw a symbolic "birth" where a "child" is born as it were, but almost immediately the child is a "man" i.e. there will be no repeat of the situation with the birth of Jesus in his bodily form, where 30 years have passed since the birth of the child, into Christ.

A little conclusion: Incongruences of gender in the NT do occur and are significant, but the most cited texts in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14 in support of the Trinity, however, contain a gender correspondence, so the only thing that can be said about these texts is that πνευμα is here identified as παρακλητος, and since παρακλητος, is masculine, then the following clauses that refer to παρακλητος are also masculine, but there is no personification of it grammatically. If πνευμα is spoken of, then, in agreement with this referent, the middle gender is also used (John 14:26).

p.s. As to Foster's question concerning Eph 2:8, I think no problem arises with the disagreement (incongruence) between the genders: the Greek τουτο refers to το δωρον and not to the feminine of "grace" and "faith". Translated, it means "and this is not of us (i.e. grace through faith), but this is the gift of God". Paul emphasizes "gift" of God versus "from us" (see also Rogers and Rogers, New Linquistic and Exegetical Key...).

p.p.s.: Wallace's study is excellent, but it is such a "discussion killer". Personally, I think the center of gravity of explaining that the Holy Spirit is not a person lies in the meaning of the word πνευμα and how it is used for such disparate phenomena as demons, spirit in man, Holy Spirit, or being transported by spirit somewhere that it simply suggests that the word has a common semantic meaning...

11

Greek and antecedents (draft)

by Blotty in

natural antecedents (essay) + meanings to certain words.

i posted about 5 months ago a study done by daniel wallace called “greek grammar and the holy spirit” (see: source), which i have cited numerous times since – which focuses heavily on greek antecedents.

ending), and she (fem.

PetrW

...I'm on vacation... but I looked at all your links. I'll look at it again when I get home😎