you said:let me think about it
Take your time. I have about a thousand other questions on first John that I will eventually post but I like to address them one at a time and this happened to be the next on my list.
I know that the Old testament LXX used ἱλασμός several times and it's usage seems to fluctuate between expiation and propitiation. I don't know if that will help or not.
I still think that this is a translator's issue since the author of 1John did use "ilasmós"...perhaps the best approach is to include both expiation and propiation in the translation in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
It is very likely that the author took both propiation and expiation into account since the Old Testament did include it...by the way...is there a Hebrew equivalent to "ilasmós"?
how does Hebrew refer to expiation and propiation?
Which translations are you guys using, for instance I am not familiar with the Catalin (SP) While I have my favorites, I'm interested in finding out which ones you use???
BillWood wrote:My Greek is poor enough that I'll need to use a couple of crutches so am planning on jotting down Strong's numbering system (although it will probably not vary much from the literal) in order to help me over the rough spots which will be many I assure you.
Here's some of my ideas from chapter one. Ho can be understood as who, which, what, that, one, other, some this can be used as a demonstrative pronoun so the That which in most of our translations seems to fit perfectly. Now was seems to be first person singular, present indicative and I had to think about this one because of the we later in the text. But now think I have a handle on it, as it was talking about a singular item (Christ). From seems pretty straight forward. a primary particle, actually there is a lot more to it then I first thought, but does not add to my confusion : )
I believe you are right in the critical point of the argument, but am not sure of the end result. I'm sure I made some sense here, 'and' made things clear as mud. : )
GTM wrote:BillWoodI believe you are right in the critical point of the argument, but am not sure of the end result. I'm sure I made some sense here, 'and' made things clear as mud. : )
One of the things that I keep in mind as I study 1 John is the fact that John was addressing Christians and I believe that he was addressing Gnostic's as well. The Gnostic's didn't believe in a Christ that was flesh and Blood since there belief was that all flesh was evil. Therefore Christ wasn't incarnate and couldn't die. Hence they deny the only way of salvation. 1 John 1:1-4 is 1 sentence and carries with it a complex set of ideas. If John was addressing the Gnostic's as well as the Christians then we might understand that John was speaking more of the Historical fact of Christ rather than the Christ Himself. If that were the case then the neuter form would be correct. If not then we would have to conclude that a.) There was a serious grammatical error as some attest or B.) there are rare cases when the Neuter form refers to a Person. I doubt that either are correct for several reasons.
I have read 1 John 1:1-4 again and I must say that possibly the intention of the author was: hey, we were witnesses and we want to share what we know with you in order to strengthen your faith. So, the message/life of Christ is underlying the text. Hence, the neuter form referring to "something" (topic, issue, event,...) and not a person.
GTM wrote:sid4greekI have read 1 John 1:1-4 again and I must say that possibly the intention of the author was: hey, we were witnesses and we want to share what we know with you in order to strengthen your faith. So, the message/life of Christ is underlying the text. Hence, the neuter form referring to "something" (topic, issue, event,...) and not a person.
I agree. I believe that your idea clearly stands in the forefront. It makes the best sense.
One question that I have in regards to John's writing style is,[/i] "How often does he use the neuter form in this manner?[i] Is this writing style used in any of his writings besides 1 John 1:1-4"?
GTM wrote:sidforgreekI'll look into that!
Looking forward to your answer.
1 John 2:24
...imeis ho ekusate....
I think that 1 John 2:24 is the best example of the two that you gave. I am going to spend some time in both texts and I will get back to you.
Users browsing this forum: calvinist and 13 guests