Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 78109 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Your analysis was okay as far as it went, but it didn't go far enough! :-) After 1 Cor. 16:2 introduces the subject 'each', what kind of verbs and pronouns are used to refer to the subject? Himself - singular. Lay aside - singular. Treasuring - singular. Prosper - singular. While, Acts 2:38 continues: 'for the remission of your (plural) sins and that you might receive (plural) the gift of the Holy Spirit.' If Acts 2:38 followed the pattern of Acts 2:3, all of the above plural verbs and pronouns would have been singular! Remember my friend, it is not the appositional phrase that is the problem. It is trying to tie the non-appositional part of the sentence grammatically to the appositional part. This is what is ungrammatical. The plural 'your' of 'your sins' cannot refer back to the singular 'each' of the appositional phrase. Thus, obedience to the individual command to 'be baptized' is not necessary to receive the promises at the end of Acts 2:38. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78199 | ||
Tim, You keep trying but you aren't making your case. When comparing 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, you carefully show that the verbs and pronouns are all singular, but why do you fail to mention the genetive plural pronoun, humon? Because you don't fail to mention that the same identical genetive plural pronoun exist in Acts 2:38. You carefully point it out in Acts 2:38, but you omit it from the list of verbs and pronouns in 1 Corinthians 16:2. Why is that? Does it not help your case? Next, you have stated an error in saying: "If Acts 2:38 followed the pattern of Acts 2:3, all of the above plural verbs and pronouns would have been singular!" Acts 2:3 has plural pronoun (autois) following the singular verb and HEKASTOS (each one). Perhaps you just missed that one. So all of the pronouns in Acts 2:38 DON'T have to be singular! to follow the construction of Acts 2:3. Secondly, the plural pronoun in Acts 2:38 in "the sins of YE" matches the plural pronoun in the phrase "be baptized each one of YE". The inspired writer makes the connection between baptism and forgiveness and every Bible translation accurately renders it so. You have made it very clear that Acts 2:38 should be understood to say "repent for the remission of sins" while disassociating baptism from the process. If you say that is the accurate grammatical rendering, then why isn't their one verse to back you up? Repentance and Baptism are necessary for receiving the promises stated at the end of the verse. Disciplerami |
||||||
3 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 78220 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Okay, last time! :-) In the clauses, 'each' is the subject. 'Of you' is basically an adjective defining 'each'. But, 'each' is the subject. From that point on, any verb which has 'each' as it's subject must be singular. Any pronoun which has 'each' as it's antecedent must be singular. The second 'of you' is modifying the object of the sentence. To grammatically match the subject (if indeed 'each' were the subject of this clause, which is what I have been denying) the pronoun 'of you' would have to be singular. I have tried patiently to explain the reasoning my friend. I have years of training in Greek and about 17 years of experience in actually translating Greek. So, I'm not just making this stuff up. Consider the other examples where 'each of you' is used. 1) Luke 13:15 - "The Lord answered him, ??You hypocrites! Doesn?t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?" 'Each' is the subject, and it is modified by the pronoun 'of you' (plural). Notice however, that each pronoun after this, which has each as it's antecedent, is singular. The verse speaks of the 'ox of his'(singular), not the 'ox of yours' (plural). And, every single verb is plural. 2) 1 Cor. 1:12 - "What I mean is this: One of you says, ??I follow Paul?; another, ??I follow Apollos?; another, ??I follow Cephas?; still another, ??I follow Christ.?" This verses says that each (singular) said 'I' (singular), not 'We' (plural). 3) 1 Cor. 16:2 - "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." Same thing again, 'each' is the subject and all of the pronouns which have 'each' as their antecedent are singular, not plural. I appreciate the dialogue my friend, but I am not going to post anymore on this particular point. I have explained my point, shown the Greek rules of grammar which back it up, and demonstrated it from other examples in the New Testament. If you don't accept it, that is your choice! :-( Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78260 | ||
Tim, Let me see if I understand what you are saying, You write, "To grammatically match the subject (if indeed 'each' were the subject of this clause, which is what I have been denying) the pronoun 'of you' would have to be singular." If I understand your point, you are denying is that the pronoun, humon, which follows the adjective, hekastos, has to be singular if it is the subject of the clause 'let each be baptized'? Is that what you are saying? If I understand your point, then you are wrong. Thayer says, and I quote him again, "when it[HEKASTOS] denotes, 'individually, every one of many,' is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number,' Commenting on 1 Cor 16:2, you say, "Same thing again, 'each' is the subject and all of the pronouns which have 'each' as their antecedent are singular, not plural." Wrong, the very next word following 'each' is a plural pronoun: HUMON. I don't know what you might come back with now, but I know you can't say "each" is not the antecedent of pronoun directly following it. That's just not allowable. I know you aren't going to tell how the rules of grammar don't allow the singular subject and plural pronoun to be connected because they don't agree. You aren't going to say that, are you? You can't because Thayer says it is used appositively with PLURAL nouns, PRONOUNS and verbs. In the Acts 2:38, to follow what you've suggested here would be to splice and splinter that second clause so as to make it unreadable: "baptisthetw hekastos humon." How does anyone follow Greek grammar by saying that the subject 'each/hekastos' is not the antecedent of the plural pronoun 'of YE/humon'? But you say it can't be because it isn't singular. In Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor.16:2, you cannot disassociate that plural pronoun from the antecedent subject "each." It really does seem to me that your theology is guiding your grammar. I have every reason to believe that you are a honest man, but you simply aren't being consistent. You deny the rule that Thayer lays out: singular subject 'each' is used along side plural pronouns (of YE/humon). Saved by Grace, 100 percent Disciplerami p.s. Iron sharpens iron, I'm grateful we could talk. |
||||||