Thank you, Jim.
>I take dia with the genitive as does Blass- i.e., "through" of space, time,
>or agent. Or, dia with the genitive can also denote manner. Our good
>friend Nigel Turner discusses dia with the genitive on page 267 or his 3rd
>volume. It can mean "through" (i.e., agency), it can denote manner, or it
>can equal "by" (in an urgent petition).
>
>I think the context here necessitates taking it as the dia of agency. The
>dative would, in my humble opinion, be quite out of place.
Yes, I should have said, genitive as opposed to accusative. I would have
thought the remote meaning of "by" would have been in the accusative (not
dative). The genitive, with or through, not denoting agency. That's my
dilemma. Sorry to have confused the issue by saying "dative" when I meant
(or at least, should have said) "accusative."
I'm having difficulty stating my objectives here without theological
background. Perhaps a caveat to the theological prohibition would be a
prohibition of agendas rather than inquiries? Is that fair? I have a
question, not an agenda, but the question relates to theology. How do I
state the question without entering into the theology and manage to be
clear? Have I misconstrued the prohibition / caution?
--- May God's blessing be in all your relationships. [Adapted from Lakota]