Jump to content

Origen

Staff
  • Content Count

    3,528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,086 Excellent

About Origen

  • Rank
    Staff Member

Interests

  • Interests
    Hebrew, Aramaic (and other cognate languages), Greek, Latin, textual criticism, exegesis, philosophy

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

State

  • State (No Abbreviations)
    TN

Denomination

  • Den
    Church of Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

2,047 profile views
  1. This text says nothing about Satan possessing anyone. You have forces that idea upon the text. Paul makes it clear Satan is the one doing the hindering.
  2. Pure nonsense! Gen. 2:7 states God formed man from the dust of the ground and then breath into him life. He was not created from the ground up nor does the text even suggest such a thing. Untrue! God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). This would only be possible if they were old enough to reproduce.
  3. We shall see. (1) Both Luke 22:3 and the John 13:27 reference the same person Judas. (2) The text does not claim Judas is possessed. Satan is the impetus but Judas is the who one acts. The text of Job NEVER uses the language of possession in regard to Job or the satan. There are no etc., etc.
  4. Say hello to all the purple unicorns and elves in fantasyland.
  5. Ah, you left out Wallace's quote where he states: "Yet there is only one devil" (p. 249). Very dishonest of you not supply the quote proving your claim wrong. Also you did not (or should I say cannot) address the word "monadic, meaning "ONE." Let me lay out the logic for you since it difficult for you to follow. Wallace says that διάβολος is monadic. The word "monadic" means "one." Since the word διάβολος is monadic, that means there is only one διάβολος.
  6. Again, I explained the why to you and even provided examples and scholarly lexicons. Either you did not read it or you are able to comprehend the point.
  7. I don't. I take action. Your comments are dishonest. Moreover you cited no grammar or lexicon to support your claim. The reason is clear. There are none. If dishonesty and zero evidence is what you call exegesis, then I thank God I know nothing about it.
  8. If you continue to be dishonest, you will be banned.
  9. Oh my!!! He says "there is only one devil." He says it is monadic which means "ONE."
  10. I explained why. Either you did not read it or you are able to comprehend the point.
  11. That is simply not the reason for the lower-case. For example Rev. 12:9: New International Version The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. New Living Translation This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels. English Standard Version And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. New American Standard Bible And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Christian Standard Bible So the great dragon was thrown out--the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the one who deceives the whole world. He was thrown to earth, and his angels with him. NET Bible So that huge dragon—the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world—was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him. There are several points to note here. Lexham English Bible And the great dragon was thrown down, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. First, even though there can be no doubt the devil here is Satan the translators do not use the upper-case. Second, just like 1 Pet. 5:8 διάβολος is anarthrous and it is in apposition. The reason has to do with the word itself. The word διάβολος is an adjective. However as every lexicon I know of makes clear it used as a substantive. This means the word functions as a noun even thought is an adjective. It is to be understood as a title or name. Since it is adjective translators will often use the lower-case even when it is beyond doubt (like Rev. 12:9) it is "the Devil Satan." The evidence from scholarly lexicons is overwhelming. These Greek lexicons could not be more clear and in no way support your claim. There are many other errors in your comment I may address latter if I have the time.
  12. Fact: Wallace is a Greek scholar and you are not. Fact: His expertise on the subject carry infinitely more weight than you. Fact: Your claim "Wallace NEVER even declares that 1 Peter 5.8 is 'The Devil', to begin with" is misleading to say the least. Monadic means ONE. Wallace makes this quite clear when he states: Fact: I cited two other advance Greek grammar which do not support your claim and which you could not address. Fact: I cited six scholarly lexicon which do not support your claim and you could not address those. Fact: You have cite no Greek grammars or lexicons to support your claim. Fact: All the scholarly evidence cited does not support your erroneous interpretation. 😂 It is easy when you ignores all the evidence against you as you have.
  13. I am refuting that point as we speak. The fact you have cited NONE is very telling.
  14. As I said before one must understand the grammar first. You claimed it is not the Devil\Satan but devil. According to three advance Greek grammars and the lexicons I cited it is the Devil, not a devil. Since it is necessary for your view that διάβολος refer to a devil rather than the Devil, and given the fact that the grammar of the verse in no way supports your claim, your interpretation of the verse completely fails on those grounds alone. It does not matter what I think it is. You must support your view and the evidence is wholly against you. 😂😂😂 Thank you @William. The fact you do not understand what being a New Testament Greek scholar means to/for exegesis is disturbing. Off hand I don't know of one but three things are sure. First, even if we don't have one that is no way supports your claim. Beside the issue is grammar (i.e. what the grammar of the verse will allow and support and what it won't. According to the evidence cited from scholarly sources, your interpretation of the verse does not work. Second, he knows Greek and you don't so whatever his view it will start with grammatical exegesis. By the way the title of his grammar is Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture. Third, since Wallace clearly identifies διάβολος as a reference to the Devil, logically his exegesis of the verse will not align with yours.
×
×
  • Create New...