End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: Odd...he said it first and when I repeat it, it's suddenly no longer "OK" to do.


I was merely pointing out that the AFF Admin. can indeed be just as snarky as anyone - & yet it's always the "ultra-cons" who get blasted for being abrasive when the "ultra-libs" are equally as rough.

Why did that need to be pointed out? I have never denied Snarkyness...

Im not an Ultra Liberal but let me also remind you that it wasn't me who did it first. I did it in respond to what one of you guys already did.


I know how you can be Prax - remember we were on CARM for many years together .

I don't need reminding how I can be but How I am is usually in response to how someone else is already in the conversation, I never denied it

[rdp]

Zodhaites

δέ
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 part?


Might wanna' take another look at your own source - you apparently overlooked a "part" !


δέ (Hom.+) one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated (Denniston 162–89; Schwyzer 2, 562; B-D-F §447

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (213). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Notice that part?


Sure did - did you ?



δέ (Root: δε, LN: 89.87; conjunction, logical, connective)

Lukaszewski, A. L., Dubis, M., & Blakley, J. T. (2011). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, SBL Edition: Expansions and Annotations (1 Co 14:35). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

In this case, looking at the context, it's clearly connecting the two ideas.


Umm, no, Paul is "clearly" appending "on the top of" or "moreover" to v. 34 another idea in v. 35 distinct from his restriction in v. 34.


The link I referenced is from a Bible program I recently got for a trial period of 21 days & it will not allow me to copy-paste it exactly until I purchase the whole program (which I'm not sure I want to do just yet). So I manually copied it precisely as it appears. There is more, but I don't feel like sitting here all night & copying it manually.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

No, I'm looking at the grammar. It's redundant to say "Teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach", which is what you are arguing by insisting they are synonyms.


I am not insisting anything - I am allowing the context & interchangeable usages to inform my posturing in this area. And, numerous examples have already been provided which demonstrate that these terms are used interchangeably - unless you're going to argue that when one is "teaching" they have ceased "preaching" ??

Yes you ARE insisting they are synonyms lol..That is your position that they are synonyms. It's still redundant


"God" and "Father" are not Synonyms in THAT respect. It's instead describing someone who is BOTH Our God AND Our Father.

I am well aware, but your argument was that these terms cannot be used synonymously because they are distinct & juxtaposed alongside one another. You did not make an argument based upon a particular "respect" - but rather you made an argument based upon distinct terminology - which is false.

Yes, that is correct. They are NOT synonyms because they are both used in the same sentence and connected by "And"..like "James AND John". It would be redundant to argue he was saying "teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach" if they really are synonyms. I also pointed out what the words mean from the Greek


Im not suggesting anything. Im speaking very clearly without ambiguity. Teaching and Preaching are two DIFFERENT things.


Then "God" & "Father" are "two different things" (BTW, I have many more examples of synonymous-interchangeable terms) - It's called a consistent hermeneutic !

That's right! They ARE two different things. Someone is both God AND Father. Not "God and God" nor "Father and Father". The Two nouns mean two different things. If they are synonyms then every father in the bible is God.

[rdp]

Oh yes, Paul was quoting the gospel of Matthew there in Acts 19...ah yes I see. So every time someone says "Jesus" they are preaching...ok.


Oh yes, someone can inform the lost about the gospel without ever referencing the text of Scripture...."ahhh yes, I see" ! See how easy that was?


Im not gonna keep answering that just because you either did not read my answer the first time or just did not like it. But like I said I have sat in meetings where the Preacher never got to a specific text and exegetically expounded it.


Likewise, I'm not going to keep explaining to you that preaching does indeed inherently contain the idea of referencing the text of Scripture....or else we have to tell lost people about the biblical gospel without using the Bible !

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Zodhaites

δέ
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 part?

Yes I Did but that was not all he wrote

Again notice the part in BOLD

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.





Might wanna' take another look at your own source - you apparently overlooked a "part" !

You might. You were the one insisting it as to be one way only. Clearly it can be connective.


δέ (Hom.+) one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated (Denniston 162–89; Schwyzer 2, 562; B-D-F §447

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (213). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Notice that part?


Sure did - did you ?

Yes, did you? What did you think "continuation" meant?

Did you miss that last part?

When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated (Denniston 162–89; Schwyzer 2, 562; B-D-F §447

Yep...and the translation in question used "And". Several others leave it untranslated.



δέ (Root: δε, LN: 89.87; conjunction, logical, connective)

Lukaszewski, A. L., Dubis, M., & Blakley, J. T. (2011). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, SBL Edition: Expansions and Annotations (1 Co 14:35). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

In this case, looking at the context, it's clearly connecting the two ideas.


Umm, no, Paul is "clearly" appending "on the top of" or "moreover" to v. 34 another idea in v. 35 distinct from his restriction in v. 34.

No, he isn't.


The link I referenced is from a Bible program I recently got for a trial period of 21 days & it will not allow me to copy-paste it exactly until I purchase the whole program (which I'm not sure I want to do just yet). So I manually copied it precisely as it appears. There is more, but I don't feel like sitting here all night & copying it manually.

Yeah I can't copy and paste everything either so here is a screen shot

deConnective.jpg

[rdp]

es you ARE insisting they are synonyms lol..That is your position that they are synonyms. It's still redundant.


Sorry - the Bible clearly demonstrates that the two verbs are used interchangeably....Typical Praxeas .




Yes, that is correct. They are NOT synonyms because they are both used in the same sentence and connected by "And"..like "James AND John". It would be redundant to argue he was saying "teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach" if they really are synonyms. I also pointed out what the words mean from the Greek.


LOL - Now we use human beings (nouns) to describe the relationship between practices (verbs) - and you're attempting to appeal to the Greek ?


Also interesting how you appeal "and/normally kai" as a "connective" when kai is NOT used in I Cor. 14.35 - think you might an agenda going on here ?



That's right! They ARE two different things. Someone is both God AND Father. Not "God and God" nor "Father and Father". The Two nouns mean two different things. If they are synonyms then every father in the bible is God.


Oh my lands! How silly - you're sounding more & more like the Trinnies on CARM ! "Every father in the Bible is now God" simply if we demand consistency in terms being used synonymously ??


No need to try & spin your way out of it now Prax - you said that just because there are two different words next to each other indicates they're not used synonymously - I argue just the opposite!


Terms have overlap all the time in Greek as is demonstrated in the terms "God" & "Father" (I can marshal many more BTW) - though they're used side-by-side they identify the same One....That's the whole point.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh yes, Paul was quoting the gospel of Matthew there in Acts 19...ah yes I see. So every time someone says "Jesus" they are preaching...ok.


Oh yes, someone can inform the lost about the gospel without ever referencing the text of Scripture...."ahhh yes, I see" ! See how easy that was?

I can inform the lost about the gospel without quoting a verse and exegetically explaining it. I can tell someone "Jesus died for your sins" and not be quoting a verse. They can then ask me what to do and I can say "Believe in Jesus. Repent of your sins. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" without exegetically expanding on a particular verse. But that is irrelevant because we HAVE the scriptures today. THEY did not. They were not all quoting a book of the gospels or Acts


Im not gonna keep answering that just because you either did not read my answer the first time or just did not like it. But like I said I have sat in meetings where the Preacher never got to a specific text and exegetically expounded it.


Likewise, I'm not going to keep explaining to you that preaching does indeed inherently contain the idea of referencing the text of Scripture....or else we have to tell lost people about the biblical gospel without using the Bible !

You confusing what Im saying. The Word "PREACH" is from a certain greek word that PREDATES it's use in the bible and was used by Greeks. It therefore inherently does NOT refer to exegetically expounding on a scriptural passage.

Someone could go out and preach Zeus or Allah or whatever they want. Some people preach the virtues of vegetarian diets. The word simply means to proclaim something. You can proclaim what the scriptures teach without ever having directly referenced a verse and exegetically expound on it.

[rdp]

You might. You were the one insisting it as to be one way only. Clearly it can be connective.


Ahhh, so now you've demoted the conjunction from a definite "connective" to "can be" a connective ! Keep this up & you'll eventually land where the biblical text does !


Zodhiates says: "but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else" - Kinda' minimizing his "more frequent" data aren't you ?


No, he isn't.


Ummm, yes he is !



Yeah I can't copy and paste everything either so here is a screen shot.


Yea' - & apparently you missed the portion about "then" & "on the other hand" in your "screen-shot." You can deny the lexical data that I specifically quoted earlier - but this particular conjunction is most often translated as "moreover" or "Now".


And, of course this conjunction can denote a continuation (though kai is most often used when this is the case) - And?? What's your point? I know that! Paul is continuing his statement in v. 34 by appending another thought "on top of" v. 35...that's my whole point ??


de: but, and, now, (a connective or adversative particle)
Original Word: δέ
Part of Speech: Conjunction
Transliteration: de
Phonetic Spelling: (deh)
Short Definition: but, on the other hand, and
Definition: a weak adversative particle, generally placed second in its clause; but, on the other hand, and.


HELPS Word-studies: 1161 dé (a conjunction) – moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next . . .


See here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

es you ARE insisting they are synonyms lol..That is your position that they are synonyms. It's still redundant.


Sorry - the Bible clearly demonstrates that the two verbs are used interchangeably....Typical Praxeas .

You've said that before. I don't agree




Yes, that is correct. They are NOT synonyms because they are both used in the same sentence and connected by "And"..like "James AND John". It would be redundant to argue he was saying "teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach" if they really are synonyms. I also pointed out what the words mean from the Greek.


LOL - Now we use human beings (nouns) to describe the relationship between practices (verbs) - and you're attempting to appeal to the Greek ?

God and Father are nouns. They are not synonyms. Teach and Preach are nouns. They are not synonyms


Also interesting how you appeal "and/normally kai" as a "connective" when kai is NOT used in I Cor. 14.35 - think you might an agenda going on here ?

Since I never said the word used in 1Cor 14:35 was Kai, this is meaningless. In fact you are obfuscating the fact we are discussing a completely different verse AND grammar where two nouns are joined by "and". Also the two words are connected because Jesus (a person) was doing BOTH.

If I said RDP went Fishing and Skiing it doesn't mean "RDP went fishing and fishing"...it's absurd to argue the words are being used as synonyms there. That's redundant



That's right! They ARE two different things. Someone is both God AND Father. Not "God and God" nor "Father and Father". The Two nouns mean two different things. If they are synonyms then every father in the bible is God.


Oh my lands! How silly - you're sounding more & more like the Trinnies on CARM ! "Every father in the Bible is now God" simply if we demand consistency in terms being used synonymously ??

They aren't synonyms. If they were. You seem to be confusing "synonyms" with words being used synonymously for the same person. Like Jesus is The Son and the Lamb, those are not synonyms but both refer synonymously to Jesus. But when in the same sentence it doesn't make sense that the author redundantly uses to different words to refer to the same action.


No need to try & spin your way out of it now Prax - you said that just because there are two different words next to each other indicates they're not used synonymously - I argue just the opposite!

No I said because the two words are used in the same sentence separated by AND that it would be redundant to say they are synonyms. You really believe he meant Jesus was "Teaching and teaching" or "Preaching and Preaching" or instead of God the Father it could read "Father the Father"?


Terms have overlap all the time in Greek as is demonstrated in the terms "God" & "Father" (I can marshal many more BTW) - though they're used side-by-side they identify the same One....That's the whole point.

Father and God don't overlap nor do they in Greek. They aren't synonyms. You are again confusing two words being synonyms and two words that can refer to the same PERSON. OPs often do it when they explain their idea of the Godhead. "Im a father and Im a son" but that does not make Father and Son SYNONYMS lol

[rdp]

I can inform the lost about the gospel without quoting a verse and exegetically explaining it. I can tell someone "Jesus died for your sins" and not be quoting a verse. They can then ask me what to do and I can say "Believe in Jesus. Repent of your sins. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" without exegetically expanding on a particular verse. But that is irrelevant because we HAVE the scriptures today. THEY did not. They were not all quoting a book of the gospels or Acts.


Which means you have to reference a biblical text when you "preach" to the lost about Christ or tell them "Repent of your sins. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (a clear reference to the biblical text) - my whole point !


No, it is not "irrelevant" to the topic at hand - it is entirely relevant.