I can follow your reasoning quite well in Ro 1:23 and 1:25, that a dative
of means seems to be the usage.
The switch to EIS in 1:28 involves a shift in the discussion from the
veneration of the created over the creator to a distortion of another
sort, a distortion of the creator's "order" or intent for human
relationships. Relationships of humans to the creator and his creation
gives way to relationships within that created order--male/female
relationships.
In a sense we still are in Genesis 1 and 2, but verse 26 takes us farther
down the page in Genesis 1 and to the beginning of Genesis 2.
In support of your statement that EIS + accusative seems to point to the
end product, Paul's usage in 1:27 shifts from EIS TAN PARA PHUSIN to
AFENTES THN FUSIKHN XRHSIN. The use of AFENTES in an expression clearly
parallel to 1:26 would support a different syntax for EIS + accus in 1:26.
>I think that in 1:23
>HLLAXAN THN DOXAN TOU AFQARTOU QEOU EN hOMOIWMATI EIKONOS FQARTOU
>ANQRWPOU KAI PETEINWN KAI TETRAPODWN KAI hERPETWN the dative EN
>hOMOIWMATI indicates the MEANS whereby humanity has adulterated the
>glory of God, and I think that in 1:25 METHLLAXAN THN ALHQEIAN EN THi
>YEUDEI the dative EN THi YEUDEI is again instrumental and that the
>sense is "they perverted the reality by means of a
>delusion/falsehood"--and the consequence of this is the worship of
>creation. Finally in 1:26 METHLLAXAN THN FUSIKHN CRHSIN EIS THN PARA
>FUSIN we have a different construction, and in this instance METHLLAXAN
>takes an object and indicates the resultant end-product of the
>perver
David W. Perkins
Good Shepherd Episcopal Church
PO Box 2172/806 Concordia
Vidalia, LA 71373
318 336-7405
dwperk@mail.iamerica.net