[rdp]

Originally Posted by rdp

So, what do we learn from all of this Prax? Precisely what I've told you from the beginning - Paul is appending another thought "on top of" his previous prohibition in v. 34. This stands in direct contrast with your original assertion:

Praxeas; Post #1680:

It's Connective

89.87 καίb; δέb: markers of a sequence of closely related events—‘and, and then.’
καίb: εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐδίδασκον ‘at dawn they entered the Temple and taught’ Ac 5:21.
δέb: Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac was the father of Jacob’ Mt 1:2.


Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (788). New York: United Bible Societies.



Now, after you've been caught red-handed making an unwarranted & erroneous assumption (something you've done before BTW) - you've modified your position above to, "Well, it CAN INCLUDE the 'connective' force" (something that does absolutely no violence to the point made).


Then, you attempt to correct me below for not being honest with the data - Will you take your own medicine now ?




Are you serious with "What's your point?" when it's staring you right the face? I've already told you the point and I will have to do it again I see.


Ummm, the only thing "staring me right in the face" is that you've been caught once again making unwarranted assumptions in the Greek - something you've done before.



The POINT is when you argued "de" means the two verses are NOT a continuation of the topic I can present evidence that is not always the case with "de" and that the Lexicons and the translations I provided showed that many Greek Authorities disagree with you by translating "de" as "AND" or not even translating it at all.



First, the continuative tag does no violence whatsoever to my point that Paul is appending another point "on top of" his prohibition in v. 34. Next, I've well demonstrated above that the primary force of this particular conjunction is to "signal change (cf. Buth 1981a:17). Its various functions should correlate with this basic idea."


And, "Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story" (or) "Now for the rest." Shall I re-post Dr. Zodhiates for you (I have more I can post BTW - But will save it for your response !)?



The sources I posted did NOT say you are right. The sources I gave merely say either view is a possibility. I don't know how you can miss that over and over. Seriously.


LOL - And I don't know how you can miss that the sources "staring you right in the face" state about this particular conjunction: "More frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else."


And, again, this was not your original assertion: Praxeas; Post #1680: "It's Connective." Nothing there about the "more frequent" & "signals change" or "Now for the rest." Keep back-tracking though & you'll eventually end up in the biblical position !





Yes and what was your source? What Lexicon was it?


See above - & many more to come !



BTW I have no problems admitting you can find a translation to translate it your way. All that proves is your idea is a consideration but not an absolute.. We can revisit zodhaites as long as you are honest enough to read the WHOLE thing and not ... out what parts you don't agree with and blissfully pretend they never existed.


LOL - You mean like you did originally? See thyself ! You've been thoroughly busted & will no doubt scramble to save-face - Will be here waiting !



Here is what Zodhaites REALLY said

dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Generally it has the meaning of but, and, or also, namely.

Notice that again "Or simply CONTINUATIVE or EXPLANATORY"

See he gives examples

(II) Continuative, meaning but, now, and, also, and the like.

(A) Generally and after introducing a new paragraph or sentence (Mat_1:18; Mat_2:9; Mat_3:1; Mar_16:9; Luk_12:11, Luk_12:16; Luk_13:6, Luk_13:10; Luk_15:11, Luk_15:17; Act_6:1-2, Act_6:8-9; Act_9:7-8; 1Co_14:1; 1Co_15:17; 1Co_16:1). In this way it is sometimes emphatic, especially in interrogative clauses (2Co_6:14-16; Gal_4:20, "I could wish indeed" [a.t.]).

(B) Where it takes up and carries on a thought which had been interrupted, meaning then, therefore (Mat_6:7; Joh_15:26; Rom_5:8; 2Co_10:2; Jam_2:15). Also consequentially after ei (G1487), if, for epeí (G1893), seeing that, since (Act_11:17).

(C) As marking something added by way of explanation or example meaning but, and, namely, e.g., to wit (Mar_4:37, "and the waves," meaning so that the waves; Mar_16:8, "trembling also seized them" [a.t.]; Joh_6:10, "Now there was [or there being] much grass"; Act_23:13; Rom_3:22; 1Co_10:11; 1Co_15:56).



Ummm, your point? This does absolutely no violence to what I've been tolling you over & over & over ?? He still begins by stating "a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else.


He then begins his views on individual passages (none of your "examples" reference the passage under consideration BTW) - so what? The "more frequent" usage of the conjunction "serves to introduce something else" - my whole point all along !


Cont......

Edited to distinguish between Praxeas' posts & mine. Praxeas' are in red above - mine are in blue.

Sorry - just caught this & it wouldn't let me edit the original post.