From: mtx014@cck.cov.ac.uk (Robert Low)
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Reply-To: mtx014@cck.cov.ac.uk
Organization: Plato's rest home for the incurably geometric
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:03:41 GMT

I tried to send this once, botched a bit, cancelled and am now re-sending.
Apologies to anybody seeing multiple copies.

In <53651@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.020538.4029@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>Richard Pitts writes
>>	a whole lot of irrelevant garbage; I have seldom seen such an
>>	attempt to back-and-fill to avoid the clear consequences of
>>	one's previous statements.

>I would be able to take your criticisms more readily, if you disputed the
>arguments I used and rather than disclaiming them.  Especially by the use of 
>words as "irrelevant garbage", "such an attempt", and as Mr. Low is
>prone to use "bogus".

You made no arguments; you quoted stuff (in such a garbled form that
it seemed obvious that you didn't understand it).

Bogus means fake, counterfeit, not what it claims to be.
As Mike Siemon pointed out, your original article
claimed that the NIV/NASB rendering was more reliable because
it was based on better manuscripts. This was not true; hence it was a
bogus explanation.

Vine's arguments are simply apologetics that do not face
up to the objective reality of how NT Greek works. Hence
it is also a bogus explanation.

>>> For my benefit, I looked up some definitions.
>>
>>	[ There follows simplistic standard defintions of grammatical
>>	  categories, none of them undermining Mr. Low's objections. ]

>Another word "simplistic", which was not needed.  

But they *were* simplistic. They were the sort of explanation
of those terms you use to get a very crude idea what the
cases etc. are for, before you start learning the language
for real. The accusative and genitive cases are used in many
ways not explained in what you quoted. 

>My educational background is not in greek nor languages, as I'm sure 
>it is not for most people in this group.  Therefore, I look up some 

Then why are you attempting a defence of a technical point
in an area you openly accept your ignorance of?

>foundational definitions pertinent to the discussion. 

See Jay Windley's follow-up to your previous reply to
me. The one where he is rightly contemptuous of the
apoproach of looking up a compendium as an alternative
to getting a working knowledge of the language.

(Addressed to mike.siemon, remember)
>Yet, you glossed over the information from Vine's, who quoted Cramer.
>This was the meat of my post on the topic at hand.

He glossed over it because it was a reiteration of the
claim I had been talking about in my original post.
That is why he maintained that you failed to understand.

Let me try to make clear to you what the problem is.
In Acts 9,  we have akouontes tEs phOnEs; in 22,
tEn de phOnEn ouk Ekousan.

You try to claim that the first phrase simply means
that they heard some sort of noise, and the second that 
they didn't understand. We have a verb, akouO,
and the object, phOnE. But akouO with the accusative means
a perception of a noise; check the other usages in
a Greek text. When you can. akouO with the genitive
actually carries the opposite connotation to
what you want---see Acts 22:7. Vine's protestations
to the contrary mean little in the face of the
textual evidence. There are plenty occurences of
"akouein tEs phOnEs" where it is clear that the hearer
can make out the words. There is no justification
from any other occasion where "ouk akouO tEn phOnEn"
can mean "I heard the noise, but couldn't make
out the sense". The nearest you can get is
that "akouO ton logon" can mean "I understand the
content of what is said"---but that is because "logon"
carries the connotation of meaning, whereas "phOnE"
simply means the noise that one makes when talking,
rather than what is said. If you like, email
me your smail address and I'll send you the relevant
portions of Moule's "Idiom book of NT Greek", and
Thayer's Lexicon of NT Greek, which provides a
wealth of references to the Greek usage, all of
which backs up what I have written here.



--
Robert Low  email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
	    smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
		    Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc