Greek Studies??

[Bro-Larry]

Hey Prax,

What about a new forum or subforum dealing with Greek word issues?

[Pressing-On]

I second that!!!!!

[A.W. Bowman]

Well, it looks like that idea may have died. Lack of water? However, how about adding Hebrew to that wish list?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Well, it looks like that idea may have died. Lack of water? However, how about adding Hebrew to that wish list?

I think we've posted some of these word studies when pertaining to a particular subject going on the various threads. Perhaps we could dump them here as well.

I will add this study I found on Romans 1:26-27. Not a Greek or Hebrew scholar by any means, but some things make sense enough to understand - at times. LOL!

And, BTW, I think it was you that posted an excellent piece on Deut 22:5. If it was you, I'd like you to link it here. There was a part that made a whole lot of sense and I wished I had saved it!!

26Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν,
26 DIA TOUTO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS PAQH ATIMIAS, hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN METHLLACAN THN
FUSIKHN XRHSIN EIS THN PARA FUSIN

I would render:

"For this reason God remanded them to dishonorable passions for even their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature."

Both TE and GAR and discourse particles and their function is not always easy. I have a somewhat different analysis from Steve.

We discussed the TE solitarium recently, and here we have two of them, one in 26b and one in 27a.

In my view TE here has the function it always has, namely to tie the clause in which it occurs more tightly to part of the previous clause than would otherwise have been the case. I called them "overlapping events".

Underlyingly, we have a common Hebrew style where the writer first gives a
general reference and then adds details about that general reference. Here that general statement includes πάθη ἀτιμίας PAQH ATIMIAS dishonorable passions.

TE indicates that the writer still has something to say about this topic and he urges you not to stop the mental processing of it before you have ALSO read what the TE introduces. In this case the dishonorable passions are described in more detail as what the women are doing in 26b, and the
second TE describes what the men are doing, again as part of those dishonorable passions. The concept of dishonorable passions is not complete until you have read everything introduced by TE.

The GAR is an explanatory particle independent from TE. As Steve said, it supports what came before (this expression is from Relevance Theory jargon, and is not very clear.) It explains further some element of the preceding clause (It does not go all the way back to v. 25). In this case, the GAR
also connects to PAQH ATIMIAS and it explains further what is meant by this phrase, what these passions are and why they are dishonorable.

So, in this particular construction the TE and the GAR have somewhat similar functions, but they are still different particles with each their focus and usage. You could say that TE adds to the content, and GAR explains the background. The explanation continues in v. 27a, and here there is no
GAR here, because the scope of the first GAR is both 26b and 27. IF there had been another GAR in 27, it would have introduced an explanation to something in v. 26b, and that is not the intention.

It is still the words in 26a that are being explained in v. 27.

[Trouvere]

We teach Greek and my husband teaches Hebrew. I am taking a Hebrew class from a Rabbi. You find out some interesting facts.

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

We teach Greek and my husband teaches Hebrew. I am taking a Hebrew class from a Rabbi. You find out some interesting facts.

When the Bible is studied from a Hebraic worldview (religious, cultural, historical and linguistic) one will discover a richer context of the scriptures. The same can be said of studying in Greek – and relating those passages back to the Hebrew.

The conceptual approach of the Hebrew language gives most of us western concrete, linear thinking people a headache. LOLOL

Anyway, may ou and your classes be blessed and may the words of God become alive.

Shalom Aleichem

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And, BTW, I think it was you that posted an excellent piece on Deut 22:5. If it was you, I'd like you to link it here. There was a part that made a whole lot of sense and I wished I had saved it!!

I am not sure my translation and interpretation is what you remember from somewhere, but yes, I did a translation some time back – on another forum, I think.

Anyway, let me find a copy and I’ll post it here as a post attachment. Hopefully, I haven’t changed anything. LOLOL

[A.W. Bowman]

Here is a series of images that include most of my translation notes. Feel free to copy what you want.

De22:5.1
De22:5.2
De22:5.3
De22:5.4
De22:5.5

I noticed that most of my notes and personal commentary are missing from these images. Earlier this year I lost both my computer data and all of my back up files - all on the same day! So, much of my"old work" is now missing. Guess I get to revisit the old stuf and get a new perspective on it!

While I can’t find my original work on this passage or my commentary (sorry), I hope this will be sufficient:

Instruction to women: Do not take up or array yourself with those implements of industry (labor or war) so as to perform those duties, tasks or responsibilities that God has assigned to men. Implied (according to the second portion of the passage): To be identified as a man – to deceive.

Instructions to men: Do not dress in the clothes of a female in order to pass as a woman. This includes the attempt to escape one’s God ordained duties, tasks and responsibilities by impersonating a woman, nor shall a man dress as a woman for sexual purposes. To be identified as a woman – to deceive.

Male apparel (implements and ornamentation) vs. female garments (clothes and coverings).

I can add a Jewish commentary plus some comments of my own, if requested. Other wise, I’ll let the scripture, the translations and these general notes suffice.

Enjoy.

Oh yes! For those who like to work in the original languages - please feel free to jump in and add your own comments, corrections, and/or suggestions.

Shalom Aleichem

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Here is a series of images that include most of my translation notes. Feel free to copy what you want.

De22:5.1
De22:5.2
De22:5.3
De22:5.4
De22:5.5

I noticed that most of my notes and personal commentary are missing from these images. Earlier this year I lost both my computer data and all of my back up files - all on the same day! So, much of my"old work" is now missing. Guess I get to revisit the old stuf and get a new perspective on it!

While I can’t find my original work on this passage or my commentary (sorry), I hope this will be sufficient:

Instruction to women: Do not take up or array yourself with those implements of industry (labor or war) so as to perform those duties, tasks or responsibilities that God has assigned to men. Implied (according to the second portion of the passage): To be identified as a man – to deceive.

Instructions to men: Do not dress in the clothes of a female in order to pass as a woman. This includes the attempt to escape one’s God ordained duties, tasks and responsibilities by impersonating a woman, nor shall a man dress as a woman for sexual purposes. To be identified as a woman – to deceive.

Male apparel (implements and ornamentation) vs. female garments (clothes and coverings).

I can add a Jewish commentary plus some comments of my own, if requested. Other wise, I’ll let the scripture, the translations and these general notes suffice.

Enjoy.

Oh yes! For those who like to work in the original languages - please feel free to jump in and add your own comments, corrections, and/or suggestions.

Shalom Aleichem

Thanks for this. I think you particularly focused on the word "wear" in the post I was referencing. It seemed to be deeper, more clear and pretty much refuted what I thought it meant. That's what I was looking for. I wish I had saved it!!!! Lesson learned!!!

[A.W. Bowman]

Ok, I got you:

kel·ēe H3627
masculine noun from the verb ka’ lah, generally to complete, finish, or accomplish.

A woman shall not kal’ah (wear): She shall not tale up to adorn herself with those things assigned to support, enhance,or function in those roles, duties or responsibilities of men, in their historical roles of provider and protector. Here, "clothing" caries the connotation of those things added to a man’s attire that enable him to perform his particular role in society.

The word has the following English applications, depending on its context and grammatical structure:

1) article, vessel, implement, utensil

a) article, object (general)

b) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel

1) implement (of hunting or war)

2) implement (of music)

3) implement, tool (of labour)

4) equipment, yoke (of oxen)

5) utensils, furniture

c) vessel, receptacle (general)

d) vessels (boats) of paper-reed

from:
H.W.F. Gesenius 1847 Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament.
Also, a more curent edition is the updated 1907 B-D-B-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon

----------------------------

Hope that helps.