Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | disciplerami | 78296 | ||
Repost, 2nd paragraph made no sense. Sorry. Tim, Let me try again.:) 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 saying that the pronoun, humon, which follows hekastos, has to be singular if it is 'defining' 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. |
||||||
2 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 78360 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Let me address your question, and then hopefully we'll be done with this point! :-) I'm not sure how many ways I can say the same thing! ;-) 'Each' is the subject. The first plural pronoun added to 'each' would be similar to our expression, 'one among many'. In this example, 'one' is the subject. From that point on, any verb or pronoun which refers back to 'each' must be singular, because the subject is singular. Even in English, one would not mix and match singular and plural. The first 'of you' is not the subject, so the following pronouns do not have to be in agreement with it. I'm an Indianapolis Colts fan. If I were to describe the unique position of that particular team as it relates the the NFL. I might say, "The Colt's football team, one of thirty NFL teams, is near the bottom in terms of total stadium revenue when compared to the rest of the teams in the league. It is near the top in terms of total spending in relation to the rest of the teams in the league." Notice that the subject 'team' is singular, even though I mention that it is 'one of thirty teams'. The expression 'of thirty teams' does not change the subject into a plural. But, from that point on in the passage, if I want to use a pronoun to refer to the Colts team, I must use the singular 'it'. I could not refer to it as 'They' or 'Them'. I could not speak of the 'salaries of them'. The same thing is true in Acts 2:38. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78380 | ||
Dear Tim, Your example doesn't compare to Acts 2:38 The singular verb and the singular subject and the plural pronoun of "let be baptized individually each of YE" is set appositively next to a plural verb. The appositive phrases match, even though the verb and subject in the second is in the singular. Your example has a singular subject 'team'. Your example does not set HEKASTOS appositively with plural nouns, pronouns, or verbs. Yes, you are right in your example: any proceeding pronouns must be singular because they point back to a singular subject 'team'. However, your use of the HEKASTOS 'each of the many' doesn't fit here because Thayer says the rules has to do with appositive phrases, that it is used alongside plural nouns, pronouns, and verbs. Your appositive phrase about the "Colt's football team" is not plural. Because 'team' is singular, in your sample sentence, the pronouns that relate to it will have to be singular. Your example also doesn't fit because HEKASTOS, each of many FOOTBALL TEAMS [plural] doesn't refer back to the appositive 'Colt's football team.' In Acts 2:38, The first phrase begins with the plural verb "repent YE", and the appositive sentence speaks individually to each of YE--not another group as your example does. Tim: "The same thing is true in Acts 2:38." Nope, unlike your example of the subject being the singular 'team', our example in Acts 2:38 points back to the YE, that were commanded to repent and be baptized. In Acts 2:38, all of the proceeding pronouns must be plural because they point back to the plural, "Repent YE" and back to the appositive phrase "let be baptized each of YE (plural)." But because of the construction of your sample, the pronouns must be singular: apples to oranges :) I understand what you are saying, but you are not being consistent. Your sample sentence is not comparative to the Acts 2:38 passage. The rule that you state only applies to your example. Thanks, Disciplerami p.s. what are your thoughts on the discussion Searcher56 and I are having over the pronoun/water vs. ark debate in 1 Peter 3:20,21? Good day to you. |
||||||
4 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | Morant61 | 78383 | ||
Greetings Disciplerami! Well, enough on Acts 2:38! :-) As always, I'll let the readers decide. Concerning 1 Pet. 3:20-21, I have just exchanged e-mails with Searcher56 on this subject. I told him that you were indeed correct about the pronoun referring back to 'water' rather than the 'ark'. There is one other remote possiblity - i.e. that 'hos' may be neuter in a special sense where 'hos' and 'toutos' can be used in the neuter and mean, 'that is'. In other words, it could function as an explanatory note. But, I have to research that possiblity much more before I would commit one way or another. The most likely view is as you said that 'hos' refers to the 'water'. Now, I still don't agree with your interpretation of the verse! ;-) But, you are correct on that point! Have a great day my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78386 | ||
I appreciate that you've weighed in on the subject and hopefully advanced the discussion. Good day to you, Disciplerami |
||||||