New answers tagged

1

"kad" followed by an active participle means "when" or "while", but not "after" or "where". So your (1) and (3) are correct, the others are not possible.


1

I would render 2 Timothy 2:25-26 as: 25 In humility, correcting those who oppose -- lest at some time God should give them a change of heart regarding the knowledge of the truth -- 26 that they might return to clarity of mind from the entrapment of the Devil, having been taken alive by him into his will. Details for verse 26: 2 Timothy 3:8-9, I ...


-1

Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by (ἐν) the law, for “The righteous shall live by (ἐκ) faith.” (Galatians 3:11 ESV) "living ἐν something [the Law]" "living ἐκ something [faith]" When an author chooses different words, the presumption should be they intend a different meaning. Strong’s states: ἐν [the Law]: in, on, ...


0

Here's the question that I think is often missed. Many will say that the word order is not significant, but somewhere along the line, someone changed it. If it makes no difference, why make a change? I contend that the earlier reading (didaskein de gunaiki) could be interpreted "but to teach a woman . . ." I recognize that the accusative usually follows such ...


3

The Greek name Abel (Ἅβελ) is one of the indeclinable proper names in the NT. So it can have a nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative idea with the same form. Other NT mentions of Abel in context of his blood have it in a genitive relationship, but clearly as part of a construction using the genitive article and in one case a genitive apposition: Mat ...


3

Twice elsewhere the author of the epistle to the Hebrews uses a genitive construct wherein he does not precede the proper name by a definite article: Heb. 9:4: ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ("the rod of Aaron") Heb. 11:30: τὰ τείχη Ἰεριχὼ ("the walls of Jericho") Likewise, in Heb. 12:24, τὸν Ἅβελ could stand for τὸν αἷμα Ἅβελ, where Ἅβελ is an indeclinable proper name ...


-1

I think that the idea of an implied "was" makes more sense contextually than "is" does because the "offering" being discussed is Jesus' death functioning as the "death introduced" to ratify the new covenant with the Jews, which would have occurred prior to the writing of the essay. In my view, though, even if an implied "is" linguistically preferred it still ...


1

John 10:30 (ESV) I and the Father are one. The sentence itself is vague. It doesn't tell us what kind of union they have. John 10:30 (Westcott and Hort 1881) ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. 1 Corinthians 3:8a (Westcott and Hort 1881) ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν 1 Corinthians 3:8 has a similar phrase which shows us that it ...



Top 50 recent answers are included