study a NT book

[GTM]

BillWood

I have been working on 1 John personally for quite some time. Picking it apart word by word and verse by verse. As long as there are participants, I plan on seeing this thing through to completion. We actually haven't gone real deep in this study and I am sure that there are those here who have participated in this discussion that could do just that.

Feel free to ask questions and anytime I am sure that some one here will be able to help. I am sure that you will be able to help us as well.

We welcome you to the discussion.

GTM

[GTM]

Here is another question that we might want to address.

I will start by sharing my thought.

1 John 2:3 και εν τουτω γινωσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον εαν τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν

εγνωκαμεν first person perfect active indicative plural.

Several times John uses the plural form "we". In this particular case Johns word usage (εγνωκαμεν) suggests that He knew Him at some point in the past.But more than that this particular use of the perfect plural form suggests that there was more than one of them that knew Him at some point in the past.[/i] "Hereby[b] we know that we know Him"[/b][i]

I have two questions;

1.) Who is the "we" that John is speaking of? Was there some type of council? Or is thi speaking os a spiritual knowledge of sorts?
2.) Who is the Him that they say that they knew in the past? It would seem as if this is a reference to the Father because of the clear association with His Commandments.

GTM

[sid4greek]

I'm planning to hang in there!

; )

[sid4greek]

sid4greek

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.


cooll!!!

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.

GTM

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?

[sid4greek]

1.) Who is the "we" that John is speaking of? Was there some type of council? Or is thi speaking os a spiritual knowledge of sorts


I am not sure about that...I'd say that "we" is referring to the christian community and to spiritual knowledge...does Greek have a special verb for "knowing someone personally" and not "knowing someone intellectually"?
2.) Who is the Him that they say that they knew in the past? It would seem as if this is a reference to the Father because of the clear association with His Commandments.

interestingly, in the Catalan translation there is "God" instead of the pronoun...I'd say it makes sense due to the fact that "his commandments" are mentioned in the same verse....who else could it be?

[BillWood]

Just a quick heads up from the slow one here : )
I just zeroxed off GRB's (George Ricker Berry) 1 john, and SZ (Spiros Zodhiates) 1 John, and have 1 john chapter one written down on regular paper. Figured I'd only do one chapter at a time on the college ruled paper, incase I find I need a lot more room for parsing. I wrote the Greek on line one, Literal according to GRB on the second line, and then skipped four lines for my notes. (I plan on writing very small) I think if I use abbreviations it will not only be quicker, but save a lot of space...

Then too, I copied all you guys old posts on this thread, deleted as much redundancy as felt needed, deleted all the addresses and names, extra spaces, and reduced the font to 8 point. Then because of my glasses, I went and upped the Greek font to 12 point. (I need those breathing marks and diacriticals for sure) This is just to help make sure I am up to speed with everyone's progress. I don't plan on printing out the rest of your posts from here on out, I just want to play catch up without being married to this computer : )

[BillWood]

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??? There are a few that I do not care for, and a few that should not be called translations, but, just to let you know, I'm not planning on starting a hobby horse here,
just enquiring minds want to know : )
Hopefully in another week I'll be up to speed here, and be able to ask a few more questions.
Also, I saw the posts on hanging in there, so thanks : )
Happy Translating
Bill

[GTM]

sid4greek

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.

I agree totally. I believe that the New Testament scriptures makes your idea clear in many places.

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"?

This is a long shot

There is also the abstract possibility(Not necessarily a position that I embrace but might be worth considering) that ilasmos could have been intended for the gnostics and the Christians also and it may have carried a much more pagan idea. The pagan religious usage for ("ilasmós") seemed to suggest mans ability to appease the anger of the gods through sacrifice. I am not sure if the gnostics even believed that they needed to appease the anger of the gods but it might be worth some inquiry. Maybe John was trying to create a contrast between the work of Christ and the gnostic understanding of the term ("ilasmós"). Not sure.

how does Hebrew refer to expiation and propiation?

I will have to check into that one. Maybe there are some clues for us there.

GTM

[GTM]

BillWood

Then because of my glasses, I went and upped the Greek font to 12 point. (I need those breathing marks and diacriticals for sure

I know that feeling well.

GTM

[GTM]

BillWood

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???

On this forum You will find that there quite a few brilliant minds (Me excluded) that will offer excellent resources.

I use the Westcott Hort Text as my primary Greek text but from time to time reference the NA text. There are many other resources available and some are actually offered here.

GTM

[GTM]

sid4greek

I'm planning to hang in there!

Thank you. That is good to hear.

GTM

[GTM]

sid4greek/Billwood

Is it possible that the translators felt that John's use of παρακλητον in John 2:1 negated the need for the dual definition in verse two and therefore they translated verse 2 in light of that idea? But if that is the case then the RSV got it wrong.

GTM

[BillWood]

OK I guess I'm about ready to start : )
It took 4 pages of college ruled paper (counting both sides 8 ) to put the Greek and literal down for parsing. (That's for chapter one.) In the process I think I discovered I need a new set of glasses : ) 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.

So today the parsing starts : ) Thanks for the patience!!! Bill

[GTM]

BillWood

So today the parsing starts : ) Thanks for the patience!!! Bill


No problem. You will see that this is a slow moving thread. So if you have any questions just present them and I am sure you will get a response.

GTM

[GTM]

Is it possible that Johns 1st Epistle was written to both Believers and Non Believers and maybe even the Gnostic's? There seems to be shifts in Johns writing that would suggest that as a possibility.

What do you think?

GTM

[Damoetas]

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.

Hey Bill,

I'm not sure I see what the Strongs numbers contribute to your studying system.... Unless Strongs is the only dictionary you're using -- it's not, is it? If it is, you should probably invest in a different one, such as this Greek NT complete with dictionary (http://www.amazon.com/Greek-New-Testame ... 554&sr=8-1). I would guess that writing down the Strongs numbers is taking away from other study activities that would be more helpful.

If you have questions, by all means write in and ask! Someone will be happy to answer them....

[GTM]

BillWood

Another good tool is Mounce's Expository Dictionary.

http://www.amazon.com/Mounces-Complete- ... 0310248787

GTM

[BillWood]

Thanks Guys I'm on a pretty fixed budget right now, after retiring and all, you take cuts here and there : ) But it was WELL worth it : ) No, Strong's numbering system is a crutch for me to help me over a hump now and then. I do have West's, Robinson's and a couple of others, besides a couple of grammars I'm working on. I just finished writing out 1 john chapter 2 and part of three. I'm comparing Scriver's and can't remember the other at the moment, but they pretty well go hand in hand, only a couple of variations so far. (Byzantine) (SP)

I also found out I need MORE spacing between the lines of text : ) As this is my first major parsing, I wanted to go whole hog with it, so am taking my time and double checking everything with the material I have on hand. Been getting leg cramps from sitting so long, almost like being back in grade school : ) I was pretty busy over the week end, and hope to make a decent post in the next day or two.

Gotta run, a ham radio meeting is waiting for me. Hope all is going well with everyone on board. Cheers Bill

[BillWood]

OK, I have just gone through chapter one, and do not think I have much to add to what you guys already posted. In the process of parsing out this chapter, I found my grammar is a lot worse then I thought it was. : ) I dug out a couple of grammars and looked at the declention tables over and over again, and found several that fit in different places, so I think I will add a few thoughts here and there, but I probably should suggest you guys get going again, and I will try to catch up, rather then you waiting for me. : )

I do have chapter two started, but like I said, not much to add to what you already posted. I do think I unlearned something in this endeavour tho. : ) And that it's easy to go into a book like this with preconceived ideas, and now I see why there is a 'little' more room for some of these other translations. (other then the 4 or 5 I like most) : )

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 just got a hint from my wife she'd like to go over to our daughters place for a couple of hours, so I'll come back to this shortly, good Lord willing and those creeks don't rise. : ) Cheers Bill PS I need all the critiquing I can get, so please don't feel like you'll hurt my feelings... I'll welcome them!!!

[BillWood]

A few more notes : ) beginning/archeés principle, Commencement, rule, chief in time/place or rank, basically I take this as from the beginning of 'time' or even before time began. We have heard/akeekóamen Noised, be reported, understand, come to the ears, hear or give audience. Have seen/heoorákamen To stare at, to discern clearly, to attend to, a hebraism (to experience) toís, these are giving me the idea of factual things, these, that, which etc. Calling attention to verifiable people places and things to which John is attesting to. Eyes/ofthalmoís vision, insight sight another no brainer I think. Our/heemoón our company, we, us. Meaning more then one, the proof is in the numbers and John is verifying again. : ) We have looked upon/etheasámetha Again, more then one person is involved in this witnessing or this person's existence et cetera. We have looked upon, to look closely at, perceive, visit or behold. Hands/cheíres These were the tools or implementations to handle the Christ. Our/heemoón not someone else's reports but this company of people John is speaking for in this instance. Have handled/epseeláfeesan referring to those hands that have handled the evidence. Concerning/peri Word/Logou tas/of life/Zooeé Was manifested/efaneroóthee or made known.
Guess that is enough for tonight, we got back late, watched medium and I've got eleven other excuses.
But I did start : )
I'd like to learn how to type the Greek words now instead of copying and pasting the transliterations : ) Also am a little confused with the parsing, I found two sets of abbreviations for the declentions, and took a back seat to the subject for the moment, as these did not totally agree : ) OR I am reading them wrong, so cheat sheets can get you into trouble : ) : ) : ) Anyways, if I figure this out, will report some on the parsing too...
Hope everyone's night is going great! Cheers Bill

[GTM]

BillWood

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 : )

Here are some of my thoughts on 1 John 1:1

In the English text, the first term that we see is the word “what”. This term is a relative pronoun and is in the neuter gender.

(Question) What is a relative pronoun?

A relative pronoun "relates" a subordinate clause to the rest of the sentence. It may be found in adjective and noun clauses.

SUBORDINATE CLAUSE is a clause in a complex sentence that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence and that functions within the sentence as a noun or adjective or adverb.

A subordinate clause is usually introduced by a subordinating element such as a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun. It depends on the rest of the sentence for its meaning. It does not express a complete thought, so it does not stand alone. It must always be attached to a main clause that completes the meaning.

Therefore If we look at these clauses we the same neuter form used 4 times.

ο ην απ αρχης
ο ακηκοαμεν
ο εωρακαμεν τοις οφθαλμοις ημων
ο εθεασαμεθα

I highly doubt that we can say that this neuter form can refer to a "who" as you have suggested in your opening statement.
I believe that the best candidate for this construction is what was from the beginning or that which was from the beginning.

If this idea is correct and I believe that it is then there must be further inquiry into the text to find the intended meaning of the writer.

So the question that I believe needs to be addressed is, "What was the writer really trying to say"?

GTM

.

[BillWood]

You are right with my 'who', I can only deduce this from the rest of the text. I did go to a half a dozen texts, and at least don't think I am reading this into it : ) These folk actually handled and saw, dealt with, so it couldn't be a thought process they were dealing with.

As an aside today I am playing with trying to learn to actually type with Greek characters. I've activated the fonts (I believe) with my older Mac G4 here, and now I will try to do the same with the lap top which is running XP. I just read on the Textkit's forum on this, how to do so. But I do not see a change yet with the Mac... ???

Thanks again, your points will be looked at more closely shortly, but I think they are well taken. Appreciate the reminder of the grammar too : ) Maybe this will be more beneficial then I thought it would : )
Cheers
Bill

[BillWood]

So far, no joy with the Greek fonts. I can type them in Word, in WordPad etc, but try to post them elsewhere, no go. Any hints besides cutting and pasting???
Cheers
Bill

[BillWood]

Just some more thought about Ho. In one of the books I looked at it said "can be used as a demonstrative pronoun". Now I as you know do not know that much about the grammar so far, so I hope the folks telling me this or that have a better understanding and are at least trying to lead us correctly. I do think It is neuter here, but neuter does not mean it is yet a mystery. The context helps us understand a bit more then the declension brings to light. I know too that you can't get along without the other either : ) so will stay with neuter for now... 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. : )
Thanks again Bill

[GTM]

BillWood

I just cut and past. I can type them from my Word Software but when I transfer them the change.

GTM

[GTM]

BillWood

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. : )

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.

GTM

[sid4greek]

BillWood

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. : )

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.

GTM

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.

[joja]

Hello, Re: the question : Was John 1:1 referring to Jesus Christ?

John 1:1 says
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."

verse 14 says: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth."
verse 15 says: "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom
I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me:
for he was before me."


John Chapter 14 verses 8-9 says:
"Jesus saith to him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me Philip? he that hath seen me,
hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Show us the Father?"


The Book of 1John Chapter 5 and verse 7 says:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."


I believe that the Word which is God,
became flesh, which was Christ,
who died in that flesh and resurrected on Easter,
and then returned on the Day of Pentecost in Spirit form.
Like an actor playing three different roles,
and wearing three different masks, yet all the same Person.
And God is One.

[GTM]

sid4greek

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.

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

[BillWood]

Just a quick note Guys: Been a little under the weather Caught me one of those dilly of a colds, and with asthma, it kinda took the wind out of my sails. Did not feel like doing much of anything, but I'm still kicking, so I must have made it. Thought I was strong enough Tuesday, went out and did a bunch of gardening, and paid for it Wednesday. But I think I'm about ready to hit the books again. I did of course do a lot of thinking, and some vocabulary work, but too lazy to do much of anything else. Still think you guys are being held up by me, so maybe I should do the catch up, whilst you continue on where you were. I'm feeling a little guilty here : ) Going out to do some gardening now, but will try to make a post on our subject tonight. Catch you guys shortly, and hope everything is going well with everyone... Bill

[joja]

Hello,

Re: I John2:3, the "we" is the believer
in what Jesus Christ taught.

To "know" Him (Christ) is to be a part of "Him"
as a partaker of His Holy Spirit.

They "knew" Him "Jesus CHRIST" as a man walking
on the earth, and also as the Holy Spirit that returned
on The Day of Pentecost, to live within their hearts.

-------------------------------

I John2:4
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not
his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."


2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)
"Therefore if any man be
in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new."

[joja]

"Like in the beginning, God, God dwelt alone, because He was the Eternal One, see, wasn't even God. God is an "object of worship." And the Logos, as we call It, the Word that went out of God, That, anyone knows that That was the Angel of the Lord, or the Word of the Lord, that followed the Israelites through the wilderness; the Angel of the Covenant, the Logos that went out of God. And then that Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us. Now we're in Saint John 1, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And now, as He gave His life for us, then His Spirit comes back upon us. Jesus said, "At that day you'll know that I'm in the Father, the Father in Me; I in you, and you in Me."
"See, It's God, all along, God manifesting Himself, working Himself through different ages. So those three, of, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, same God working in three attributes. And we today are one, the Church Itself, an attribute of God's thinking before the foundation of the world, to have a--a Church. So those which are in Christ was in Christ at the beginning, that was His thoughts, and His thoughts is His attributes." -William M. Branham

[joja]

RE: THE ANTICHRIST


"Now, remember, the antichrist and the beast is the same self spirit.
...Remember, Nicolaitia (See?), it had to be incarnate before it could
be crowned.
...Three stages: first stage he's called antichrist; second stage,
he's called the false prophet; third stage, he's called the beast.

Notice, Nicolaitia, the antichrist teaching that started in the
days of Paul against God's Word: antichrist... Then he's called again
the false prophet, which when the teaching become a man,...
...The third stage is a beast, a man that's crowned in the last days
with every power that pagan Rome ever had, because the seven-headed beast,
dragon, was cast out of heaven and come incarnate in the false prophet.
Here it is; he had seven crowns, and he was cast out and throwed into
the earth and the sea. All right.
What are we saying? Who is this rider, this horse rider?
You know what it is? It's Satan's superman.

Now, he was first called antichrist. The second stage, he was called
the false prophet, because that spirit among the people become incarnate.
You remember the white horse rider now had no crown when he started,
but then he was--was given a crown. Why? He was the Nicolaitane spirit
to begin with. And then he become incarnate in a man, and then he was
crowned, and received a throne, and was crowned.
And then he served that for a long time, as we'll see as the Seals break,
and then we find out after that a long time Satan was kicked out of heaven.
And he come down, according to the Scriptures and enthroned himself.
Just think, enthroned himself in that man and become a beast.

Now, first stage, white horse, he was just a teacher, but an antichrist spirit
in its doctrine and its quality. It was innocent. It couldn't hurt nothing,
seemed like, just going on...
...Watch this antichrist spirit rise up amongst the early church--a doctrine of Nicolaitanes. "Nico," "conquer the laity," make a holy man. See?
... in the second stage the Bible said he'd be given a crown, and they
crowned a man, a superman. See?), crowned him.
... The Bible called him a false prophet. Why? Yeah. Of course he must be
a false prophet by his antichrist spirit that taught antichrist against the
original Word.


Now, this happens later on. He's false prophet now.
He will become beast after while

Notice now, he will be given a heart of a beast at that time,
and Satan will incarnate himself,..." - William M. Branham

[sid4greek]

sid4greek

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.

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

I'll look into that!

; )

[GTM]

sidforgreek

I'll look into that!

Looking forward to your answer.

GTM

[joja]

Have a happy Easter.

[joja]

May 14, 2010...

[sid4greek]

sidforgreek

I'll look into that!

Looking forward to your answer.

GTM

I think I have found two examples:

1 John 2:24

...imeis ho ekusate....


and also

1 John 5:15

...emon ho ean ...

(I still can't use the Greek symbols...don't know why

[GTM]

sid4greek

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.

Thank You

God Bless

GTM

[sid4greek]

sid4greek

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.

Thank You

God Bless

GTM

rightio...I'll do that as well to the best of my ability