Jump to content

Origen

Staff
  • Content Count

    3,528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Origen

  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.
  15. There is no grammatical reason to understand it as a reference to "all men without exception." The Greek word is αἰών. It refers to "an extended period of time." It is "a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age." In this case it is a reference to the "the present age," "the ruler of this age is the devil..." See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Ed. p. 32. The vast majority of scholars take it as a reference to the Devil, Satan. Even though Satan\the Devil is described as a ruler, a prince, and a god his authority is never considered absolute or irrevocable. It always has limitation (see Job). It seems to me the prefect backdrop to 2 Cor. 4:4 is Acts 28:15-18. "And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’"
  16. You believe that Jesus possesses literal physical keys to death and hades (Rev. 1:18)? You believe Jesus gives literal physical keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19)? So some kind\type of physical barrier requires a physical key in order to open (i.e. unlock) death, hades, and the kingdom of heaven.
  17. In order to exegesis a text one must thoroughly and objectively understand the grammar first. That does address the grammar of this text. Not according to the advance Greek grammars and scholarly lexicons I have cite. Since you don't know Greek it is best to follow those who do know Greek. You have not understood what I meant. I said it is either the Devil or it is not (i.e. that is one or the other). A lexicon won't change that fact. It really does not matter at this point. Wallace clearly identifies διάβολος as monadic. That is just a fact. Moreover I cited two other advance Greek grammars both of which addressing the omission of the article and both of those reject your claim. The evidence from expert Greek scholars is against your view. You have lost all credibility that last statement. That claim is false. Partial Bibliography Also note that: Since it is blatantly obvious you don't know Greek, tell us what your qualifications are so that we may compare you and Wallace.
  18. Why would he? First, there are only two alternatives (i.e. either it is the Devil or not the Devil). It is not as if any lexicon is going to change that. Second, his argument is based upon Greek grammar which by the way you are unable to refute. Third, lexicon evidence supports him (see some of the evidence below). That is a very poor argument. First, your claim is not accurate. Here are three examples. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, p. 145 A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament by Barclay M. Newman p. 42. By the way this dictionary is found in the UBS5 Greek NT. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint 3rd Corrected Ed, Compiled by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie p. 136. Second, even those lexicons that don't capitalize "Devil" make it clear they are speaking of a particular and specific being\individual. By the way I looked up Thayer's reference to Winer’s Grammar, 124. Winer also supports "the devil" reading. A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis : Winer, Georg Benedikt, 1789-1858 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ARCHIVE.ORG Includes bibliographical references The evidence is against your claim. Three advance Greek grammars do not support your view nor do the lexicons.
  19. He also says: "Modern translations have correctly rendered δαιμόνιον as “demon” and have, for the most part, recognized that διάβολος is monadic (cf., e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 20:2)." Wallace identifies διάβολος as monadic. It is and the above quote show he stills identifies διάβολος as monadic. Clearly Wallace did not see it as a problem. Furthermore that does nothing to address the point I made in regard to the text. First, the point is such an example proves nothing since the word ὡς is comparative particle and used over 500 times. That is the word one would expect. Second, it s not really the same comparison at all. In Rev. 9:8 there is no adversary, no devil, no roaring and the comparison is to teeth. Moreover the comparison in 1 Pet. 5:8 concerns what the Devil does ("like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour)." In Rev. 9:8 the comparison is a description the locusts appearance ("their teeth like lions’ teeth"). Lastly you just ignored the fact that word for demon is δαιμόνιον and the word for Devil is διάβολος.
  20. Hey guys this is not the thread for theological dissuasions. This thread is about idioms found in the KJV.
  21. I am very grateful that all of you enjoyed this thread. I found it to be entertaining, interesting, and informative. Thanks everyone. The truth is I have just run out of KJV idioms. I have no doubt there are more but I am not aware of them. If I come up with any I will post them. Again, thank you.
  22. While I agree with you that the Devil is restrained\bound in some sense, your reasons for not viewing 1 Pet. 5:8 as the Devil won't work. While it is true "diabolos" is anarthrous, it is still definite. Monadic nouns do not require the article to be definite. There are numerous example in the N.T. See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace p. 249 and A Greek Grammar the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by F. Blass and A. Debrunner p. 149, §268. There is simply no objective reason why the term could not be applied to the Devil. In fact there is a very good reason why Peter would use the term. The Greek noun refers to one who is an "accuser." In Hebrew the word for "accuser" is "satan" (i.e. שָּׂטָן‎). Since there are definite links between the words and their meanings, referring to the Devil as accuser\adversary makes perfect sense. Also note the word is used three times Mat. 5:25, its parallel passage Luke 12:58, and 1 Pet. 5:8. I don't know what you mean by "key word," but ὡς is used over 500 times in the N.T. in all kinds contexts. The fact it is used in Rev. 9:8 really does not prove anything since the word is so common. It is a comparative particle and used to compare all kinds of things. The word for demon is δαιμόνιον. Devil is διάβολος. Part of the confusion is KJV translates both διάβολος and δαιμόνιον as “devil.” Like I said I agree with you the Devil is restrained\bound in some sense but this verse refers to THE Devil.
  23. I agree with you in principle but such a methodology in my opinion puts the cart before the horse. My obligation is to understand the text as it is written. While I agree that Scripture does not contradict Scripture I see that as a truth which has been revealed through my studies and not as a presupposition I bring to the text. That is why when I look at the possibilities, now speaking theologically, I can say I don't believe there is a problem. In the OP I asked: My answer would be no. Not because Scripture does not contradict Scripture, even though that's true, but because the text and the grammar allows it.
×
×
  • Create New...