Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25701 | ||
Tim, Thanks for the quick response! Thank you also for actually looking at the pages to which I referred you to. You'd be amazed at the sheer number of people who wish to argue but never look at the evidence. On number one you seem to making more distinctions than are warranted. Paul uses the plural simply because he is referring to more than one thing. Secondly, the days that are mentioned in vs. 16 can be thought of as a sub-clause which he could have left out and his original audience would have known what he was talking about. Thirdly, it causes more problems than it is worth to assume that Paul was only referring to "sabbatwn": is he talking about the seventh-day Sabbath? If so, where in the OT is it given as a symbol of something to come? If it is the ceremonial sabbaths then what does that say about the other two (feasts and new moons)? The answer to number two is not based on assumptions; Troy Martin's study pays attention to the grammatical construction of the passage. Assumptions do come into play when it is assumed that Paul is playing off "shadow" with "body". |
||||||
2 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 25705 | ||
Greetings Djconklin! I have to admit, I was tempted not to read the pages! :-) 1) Greek pronouns usually agree with their antecedents in both gender and number. My point is simply this, including your translation, there appear to be three options concerning the antecedents of "these." a) All of the nouns listed in v. 16. b) Only "sabbaths". c) Only "eating" and "drinking". Of the three, I think a) is the best choice. b) is possible grammatically. But, c) has no grammatical support at all. I would disagree that the last three nouns are a sub-clause. 2) Again, I would disagree. Each option includes assumptions simply because there is no verb in the last clause of v. 17. I assume that the last clause is a contrast with the clause immediately preceding it. Thus, I would translate it as, "These are a shadow of what is to come, but the reality is Christ." Your position assumes that "but the body of Christ" refers all the way back to the beginning of verse 16 and thus you translate it, "But (let) the body of Christ (judge or decide)." Either option mandates an assumption since there is no verb! Grammatically, I think the best option is that 'de' contrast the body with the shadow. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25708 | ||
"I would disagree that the last three nouns are a sub-clause." This is because of the meaning of "e en merei"; check it out: http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/216b.html --- "Grammatically, I think the best option is that 'de' contrast the body with the shadow." Then write it up and submit it to Journal of Biblical Literature and see what they say when they review it. Here's what Troy Martin said: "The construction of [me oun tis umas krinetow ... to de soma tou kristou] is an antithesis. The negative member is stated first; the contrasting positive member introduced by an adversative conjunction occurs second. ... The verb [krineto] determines the action that is forbidden by the first member and then enjoined by the second member of this antithesis. ... The prohibition in the first clause of the antithesis in Col 2:16 indicates that the nuance of [krineto] is negative. ... However, the action enjoined by the second clause requires a positive nuance. ... An example of precisely this combination of nuances occurs in the antithesis in Rom 14:13 ...." [ "But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17)," Journal of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995): 252-3] |
||||||