[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #685
b-greek-digest Friday, 28 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 685
In this issue:
Re: EXAD
RE: Mat 5:22
Re: Mat 5:22
Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
Re: Baptism for the dead
I Corinthians 5:8 / Erasmus
Teaching Greek
baptism for the dead
UBS4 and NA 27
LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
UBS4, NA27, etc. (Rex Koivisto)
Baptized (UPER the dead
Electronic form of Majority Text
Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
Word lists
Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
Word Lists LXX
Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
Re: eis with accusative
1 Cor. 7:36
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 23:08:26 PDT
Subject: Re: EXAD
Folks,
Nice topic. Philosophical unity and numerical unity are the same thing in
both Neo-Platonic and Cabalistic work. See also Tillich to the effect that
the entire Patristic Trinitarian discussion was merely the discussion of the
relationship between the numbers one and three.
The unitary wording of the Shema is parallel to Jesus' "I and my Father are
One." There too, both philosophical and numeric sense is meant because they
are identical, both in the existential experience He is there indicating and
in the Pythagorean/Stoical/Neo-Platonic redaction tradition which has
preserved that statement -- which He did in fact make -- in its aspect of
the canon.
Exegetes and theologians/philosophers need to work together all the time. A
lot of NT inquiry here is lacking in knowledge of the philosophical
background of the texts and on the philosophy lists there is lots of
ignorance of the exegetical and hermaneutical imperative. Specialization
for career hooks is really detrimental to the church.
Anyhow, number and philosophy are one. Remember the Pythagorean dictum:
All is Number. The Fathers were keenly aware of this background to all
their discussions and so were the LXX.
- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 23:18:06 PDT
Subject: RE: Mat 5:22
Dennis,
Jerome's exegesis of this is in the direction your note is anticipating.
His words are: "You get angry, you are human. You do not act in anger, you
are a Christian."
I think you can see what is following from this. All the negative emotions
are present in any person you want to pick. Jesus included. But we don't
have to act in terms of those emotions. In fact, except in very rare cases,
we should not.
Our psychology culture teaches that if we have an emotion we have to act it
out and are entitled to. They teach this so long as the emotion in question
does not hurt someone else. Anger is an emotion our psychology culture
takes for, in general, not hurting anyone else. You can decide whether
Jesus took it in this way. I recall that he identified anger pretty much
with murder ...
There a little thought on the matter, anyhow.
All the best,
David
- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 05:27:43 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: Mat 5:22
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Dennis Ford wrote:
> I am asking for help in understanding the meaning of anger in Mat 5:22.
> I have a philosophy professer who criticizes Christ's teaching because he
> takes this verse to be a universal prohibition against anger. I know very
> little Greek, but the resources I have say the verb form is the present
> participle, which would mean continuous or repeated anger. I would
> appreciate someone either confirming or correcting this rendering.
In the context of the antitheses it would seem to me that the proper
sense of the participial substantive PAS HO ORGIZOMENOS is "anyone who
continues to harbor anger at his brother," and further, that "brother" in
Matthew may very well mean "fellow Christian" (or member of one's
community), and that this is a matter of Jesus' intensified
interpretation of the meaning of the Mosaic Law: not just adultery, but
lust & lechery are violations of God's will for men in relation to women
who are not their wives; not just murder, but hostile intent is a
violation of God's will. So the person who (blessedly!) hungers and
thirsts after righteousness, who strives to be "perfect like [his/her]
heavenly father" will not be content with mere observance of the letter
of the Mosaic commandment. This is what A.N. Whitehead called "a morality
of aspiration," and for all the apparent anti-Pauline slant in the
framework of the antitheses, it has always seemed to me that the tenor of
this sequence comes very close to what Paul says in the opening of Romans
12.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 07:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Ken Penner wrote:
> At 09:04 AM 4/25/95 PDT, broman@nosc.mil wrote:
>
> >Phillip Comfort in his book "The quest for the original text of the Greek NT"
> >(approximate title) had a chapter listing the changes he would like made
> >in the NA26 text. Generally, he rang the changes on the theme:
> >"They should have trusted Vaticanus more." but there were some thoughtful
> >comments, too.
>
> What do you all think of Comfort's book?
>
> I did a review of it for a library, and wouldn't recommend it.
> I didn't think it should be banned, but I found that the scholarship was
> sloppy and the issues got confused.
>
> Any other opinions?
> Ken Penner
> Regent College
>
>
Cf. the negative review of William Petersen (JBL 113 [Fall94]:529-531):
"In Short, Comfort's acquaintance with both the literature of textual
criticism and its issues is utterly inadequate."
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:15:43 CST
Subject: Re: Baptism for the dead
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Shaughn Daniel quoted Tertullian and wrote:
>I think it is interesting how Tertullian seems to refer to the practice as
>existing, yet he doesn't know what it was, and despite this, judges it a
>vain practice. He opts for a practice that he does know about--"praying for
>the dead"--and that practice is well attested (Kalendae Februariae, Ovid's
>Fasti, Macrobius's Saturn, Cicero's De Legibus, Plutarch's Numa).
>
>I just ran a search on my TLG with the two word fragments: BAPTIZ near NEKR
>within 4 lines. There seems to be a lot of passages concerning these two
>phrases, but I don't have the time to crawl through the Greek passages now.
>It's enough data to make another thesis.
Shaughn--
Thanks for the quote from Tertullian. To your list of praying for the dead
add 2 Macc. 12:44, where the LXX reads (UPER NEKRWN PROSEUCESQAI.
If you get a chance, search on the TLG for BAPTIZ near both NEKR and UPER
within perhaps 2 lines. That may narrow it down quite a bit. It will also
cut out passages such as Sirach 31:25, which has BAPTIZOMENOS APO NEKROU,
apparently referring to the practice of bathing after touching a dead body.
Citations such as this are interesting, but do not bear on the question at
hand.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bill Chapman <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:30:47 CST
Subject: I Corinthians 5:8 / Erasmus
I Cor 5:8 is preceded and followed by instructions concerning widows
but the verse itself uses the non-specific "TIS."
Who is intended by TIS? Is it "any widow," or "any person?"
Calvin's commentary has:
Erasmus has translated it, "If any woman do not provide for her
own," making it apply exclusively to females. But I prefer to
view it as a general statement. . . .
Who is Erasmus? Is there any textual tradition or grammatical point
that would clearly identify the referrent?
Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.
- --
Bill Chapman:WCC1@ra.msstate.edu:POBox 1262:MSU, MS 39762
(601)325-2042
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Teaching Greek
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
> >[Meadors] Yes! I am going to use Mounce next year...text, workbook and
morphology;
> >then two lexicons (BAGD and LN); then a GNT et.al. I feel for my
> >students as well as for my annual trek to SBL displays!
>
> [Decker] Not seeing any smiley, Gary, you'll have to fill me in. Do you
anticipate
> all this for one class, i.e., "Greek 101"? Or is this your textbook list
> for several classes? I'd be interested in how you structure your courses
> and integrate this array of textbooks as well as how much you expect
> students to buy and how much you recommend or assume access to (i.e., in
> the library).
>
> Rod>
I would require all of those items by the end of the first year of
GkElem. Next year will be my first with Mounce. I used Machen for
years, then James Hewett (with good results), and recently I tried David
Allen Black (not happy with its later chapters).
I introduce the second year students to a two track
approach (which is also introduced in last 1/4 of first year), (1) close
primary lexical production of a translation which is
"as literal as possible and as free as necessary" (BMetzger's words), for
our daily translation for class discussion, and
(2) a track of rapid reading/large block exposure. In the second area I
introduce them to Zerwick and ask them to read (without the paper work of
#1) the Gospel of John in the Fall and Romans in the Spring. This may mean
that they read over some items,
but I want to force their eyes to endeavor to deal with larger units
without the pressure of perfection. The longer they do this, the less
they read over and the more confidence they gain that they can really
read the GNT. This second area, I think, has been a strength in
university systems and a major weakness in evangelical bible colleges,
colleges and seminaries. Graduates of the later often quit reading and
only use the lang. for reference...and thus misuse it.
While I am in the personal musing mood, I believe that "prin. parts"
should be approached in a both/and not either/or mode. Students need first
to learn the predictable patterns in the prin. part flow. Then they need
to memorize key prin. part verbs as a means of seeing these patterns in
action and fixing a certain cadence in their memory/mind.
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: baptism for the dead
I Cor 15:29 may be another example of Paul's reasoning where he
accepts the premises for the sake of argument (but, does not necessarily
believe or condone such), then shows the consequence of such. In this
case, even if baptism for the dead were acceptable, does that not also
argue for the resurrection of the dead/
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:16:11 -0700
Subject: UBS4 and NA 27
Well, I have been following with interest the thread on UBS4/NA27 but have
not actually been able to pick up any real differences between NA26 and
NA27 in terms of the _actual text_. I understand that UBS 4 was retypeset
(to the dissatisfaction of a number of folk on this list), and that
introduced some slight mistakes and that therefore NA27 is a bit cleaner in
terms of text. But the key question for me is exactly where the changes
between NA26 and NA27 exist in the _text_ and not the apparatus. Were
there any real textual changes at all, even in terms of transliterated
terms? Has anyone been able to track any? Again, I am not asking of
differences between UBS4 and NA27 but between NA26 and NA27.
Thanks.
**********************************************************
Rex A. Koivisto
Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology
Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, Oregon FAX:
503/254-1268
**********************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 10:44:11 PDT
Subject: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
I have learned that I need to be able to sight read all the above
litearture in Gree. Unfortunately, I don't know where to go to find
a vocab list to memorize for low-frequency words in the NT, let alone
the LXX or the Apos. Fathers. Does anyone have any suggestions? I almost
decided against my PhD program next Fall because of this requirement.
Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:51:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: UBS4, NA27, etc. (Rex Koivisto)
It's probably been said many times, but here it is:
UBS3 and UBS4 have the same text, which is identical to
the text in NA26 and NA27. The only discrepancy is that by
UBS3 is meant CORRECTED edition, especially in matters of punctuation.
UBS1, UBS2 and UBS3 had a different punctuation than NA, so UBS3c
altered the punctuation to agree with NA26. So now all four have
identical texts, even in punctuation.
The apparatus for each is different, however. Those differences
have been discussed and debated before.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:30:08 CST
Subject: Baptized (UPER the dead
Wow! Did I ever stir up a hornet's nest!
Carl Conrad wrote:
>Finally, as a post post-script, I'll add another two cents' worth: I
>think that there are lots of questions about matters in our NT text that
>we are not likely to get to the heart of (this side of the grave); the
>relevant sources of information are lost and we have only tantalizing
>fragments left. I really suspect that this matter of those who "are
>baptized/get baptized 'for the dead'" is one of these questions.
And Edward Hobbs wrote:
May I heartily second Carl Conrad's Post-Post-script?
. . .
>And when Paul casually
>introduces as a clincher, the fact that some are baptized for the dead,
>we don't know what he meant. It may be entertaining, interesting,
>even fun, to speculate; but we still won't know.
I do, however, feel that I have accomplish something. When men of the
linguistic calibre of Carl Conrad and Edward Hobbs write to say that we really
don't know what this passage means, we have advanced from a discussion that is
sure that it refers to some sort of proxy baptism. It may in fact do that;
but the evidence is not clear.
Then Carlton Winbery wrote:
>And Ed Hobbs said that some Baptists grammarians dealt with EIS plus the
>accusative to satisfy Baptist theology!
Ouch! Point well taken! I must plead guilty, however; the concept of a proxy
baptism does not have a place in my mental framework of orthodox theology
(perhaps that is in part due to the fact that I lived in Utah for six and a
half years). On the other hand, I think there is a difference between causal
EIS and causal (UPER. The very existance of causal EIS is controversial;
the only Bible translator that I know of who has been bold enough to translate
EIS as "because of" is Wuest. Causal (UPER, on the other hand, is well
documented. Not only is it found in the lexicons (Thayer, BAG, L&N), but is
actually translated "because of" in 1 Cor. 10:30 in the RSV and NIV.
Carl Conrad also wrote:
>We are talking about HUPER
>in the sense of "over" as in "The civil war was fought over slavery,"
Thanks, Carl, for reminding me that (UPER can sometimes be translated by its
English cognate "over." In such a case, 1 Cor. 10:30 could be translated "why
am I slandered over that for which I give thanks?"
1 Cor. 15:3, on the other hand, gives me more problems. Is this the simple
"Christ died over/on account of our sins," or is this some sort of polar use
of (UPER: "Christ died on behalf of us, to remove the result of our sins"?
>Perhaps it is ultimately subjective, my sense that Bruce's reading of
>HUPER TWN NEKRWN as "because of dead (loved) ones" is far-fetched. I
>guess what bothers me most is that it seems to me a strange and
>unnatural way to say this.
In some ways this seems strange to me too. However, after I study (UPER a
while it all seems strange. The word is certainly not used most of the time
in 1 Cor. to mean "on behalf of." Elsewhere in 1 Cor. where it is used in
this sense, it always refers to Christians as the ones receiving the benefit.
Then Vincent Broman wrote:
>If the dead never rise and there is no expectation of being raised with them,
>and the baptism is not expected to even benefit the dead, then in what way
>can the dead be "the moving cause or the reason" for the baptism?
>I cannot visualize the motivation involved.
Here is another case where I haven't made myself clear. This is after Paul
has argued that Christ in fact has been raised from the dead, and in the same
way Christians will be raised at his coming. Therefore, if this Christian who
has died is going to be raised with Christ, then a person who loved that one
while he or she was still alive might be motivated to accept Christ by being
baptized into Him, so that that individual still alive also might be raised
with the loved one in the last day. But this action only has validity if
there is in fact a resurrection, which is Paul's main point.
Personally I find it difficult to believe that there was a group at Corinth
which did not believe in the resurrection, but which practiced proxy baptism.
Why would they do such a thing? I know of no historical evidence for such a
group. I am afraid that the existence of such a group has just been
postulated to make sense of the translation of (UPER as "on behalf of" here.
And Kevin D. Johnson wrote:
>Perhaps the meaning of "Baptism for the dead" is figurative, and emphasizes
>the death (baptism) of Christian martyrs. That is at least the subject of
>the immediate context in the verses following v29.
I guess one might seek support for this by going to Mark 10:38-39, but unless
there is some sort of rare idiom involved here, I do not see how (UPER could
lend itself to this understanding.
Finally, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>But perhaps we could focus on SOLUBLE
>problems, or at least SOLVABLE ones.
That is probably good advice, especially since I may be in over my head. This
thread had almost died when I made my post; however, it did not seem right to
let it die without making the point that there is a linguistic alternative,
however remote it may be, to the proxy baptism understanding, and that
alternative does not have the historical and rhetorical problems that the
proxy baptism interpretation does.
Thanks to all who have responded. You have made me think about this one.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 14:28:59 -0700
Subject: Electronic form of Majority Text
I am trying to get my hands on an electronic copy of the majority text. Not
just the Received Text like On-00line Bible has. My preference would be the
text behind the NKJV or Hodges' MT (Nelson). Do any of you know how I can
get a hold of this.
I want to run a comparison between it and UBS4 and get a listing of where
the differences actually are. If you are able to help me get it, I would be
glad to share the results with you.
My reason for this is more ministerial than any other. When a pastor works
on a sermon, are there any areas where whatever text the pastor is using
might be different from what a parishoner is using? I can comp[ile it by
hand, but I don't have a few spare months to do it in. In the back of my
mind I would love to have a "universal" Greek text that would list all te
basic differences in context.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 17:04:14 CST
Subject: Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Bill Mounce wrote:
>I am trying to get my hands on an electronic copy of the majority text. Not
>just the Received Text like On-00line Bible has. My preference would be the
>text behind the NKJV or Hodges' MT (Nelson). Do any of you know how I can
>get a hold of this.
>
. . .
>
>My reason for this is more ministerial than any other. When a pastor works
>on a sermon, are there any areas where whatever text the pastor is using
>might be different from what a parishoner is using?
Bill--
For that project go ahead and use the TR. I don't know of any Bible
translated from Hodges' MT. The NKJV, like the KJV, is based on the TR. It
even has the 1 John 5:7-8 expansion. It does list differences between the TR
and MT and NA in the footnotes.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:33:37 PDT
Subject: Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
billm@on-ramp.ior.com asked about:
> an electronic copy of the majority text.
The Online bible supplies the UBS3, Stephanus 1550 TR,
Scrivener 1894 KJV Vorlage, and Robinson's Majority texts.
The last is similar but not identical to Hodges/Farstad, except
in the Apocalypse. They are both essentially based on Von Soden's apparatus.
You can extract the texts from the Online Bible by "print"ing to disk.
If you don't succeed in this, I have copies nearby that are more conveniently
formatted and might be exchanged.
If all you want are differences from NA26/UBS3, then just refer to the
second apparatus in the Hodges/Farstad text. If all you want are the
differences which are weighty enough to be visible in english translation,
just check the marginal notes of the New King James Version NT.
Just running 'diff' on the electronic texts may not be very useful, because
there are differences in about 60% of the verses of the NT.
Gnu wdiff might do what you want, but I haven't tried it.
Peter Robinson's "Collate" would likely do it, too, but I wouldn't
know for sure, not having a Macintosh.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Word lists
In regard to low-frequency words in the NT, check the list throughout the
4 vol. set, _Word Studies in the New Testament_, by Marvin R. Vincent.
Good luck on the rest!
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:20:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
>Just running 'diff' on the electronic texts may not be very useful, because
>there are differences in about 60% of the verses of the NT.
>Gnu wdiff might do what you want, but I haven't tried it.
>Peter Robinson's "Collate" would likely do it, too, but I wouldn't
>know for sure, not having a Macintosh.
Thank you for your answer. What is "Gnu wdiff"? A typo or a program. And
how can I get in touch with the "Collate" program?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:33:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Word Lists LXX
Sorry for the disconnected post, but I just remembered a helpful tool on
the LXX vocab:
Jacques, Xavier. _List of Septuagint Words Sharing Common Elements_.
Subsida Biblica 1. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972.
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 20:32:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Electronic form of Majority Text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:20:22 -0700
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
>Just running 'diff' on the electronic texts may not be very useful, because
>there are differences in about 60% of the verses of the NT.
>Gnu wdiff might do what you want, but I haven't tried it.
>Peter Robinson's "Collate" would likely do it, too, but I wouldn't
>know for sure, not having a Macintosh.
Thank you for your answer. What is "Gnu wdiff"? A typo or a program. And
how can I get in touch with the "Collate" program?
GNU is the GNU Project (which I happen to work for). You can get
information about wdiff (and the GNU project in general) by sending
mail to gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu. All our software is freely
redistributable.
Michael
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 22:12:49 -0400
Subject: Re: eis with accusative
Bruce Terry wrote
"On the other hand, I think there is a difference between causal
EIS and causal (UPER. The very existance of causal EIS is controversial;"
That is true and a good point, but how do you translate the EIS TO KHRUGMA of
Matt. 12:41?
Thanks for a good discussion.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Watkins Randy CDT <x74806h4@westpoint-emh2.usma.army.mil>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 22:12:30 EDT
Subject: 1 Cor. 7:36
Would somebody be willing to do an exegises on 1 Cor. 7:36 for me? I'm
particularly interested in the phrases "thinketh that he behaveth himself
unseemly" (nomizo aschemoneo), "hath passed the flower of [her] age"
(huperakmos), and whether the subject of huperakmos is HE or SHE. This is very
confusing to me.
Basically I'm asking does this verse mean that if a man thinks he cannot hold
himself much longer from sleeping with his fiancee (what would be meant by the
possessive 'his virgin') he can go ahead and sleep with her (do what he will)
and that he must immediately marry her- in so doing there is no sin?
To me this would appear to invalidate the presupposed imposition against
'pre-marital sex'- a concept I cannot find anywhere in the Bible. My studies
are beginning to reveal that sex is what causes marriage and therefore the
first act of 'pre-marital sex' is actually a marriage- subsequent acts with
other "girlfriends" would be adultery. The exegises of this verse would help
me in my study.
Paul W.
>.
CDT CPL Watkins, R. Paul *CENTURIAN* <USCC, USMA-West Point>
x74806h4@westpoint-emh2.usma.army.mil / Room 5021 Scott Short
The branch is tender and bears its leaves- the summer is nigh!
The Day of Wrath is yet near. ***Even so, come, Lord Jesus.***
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #685
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu