hO QEOS in phi. 3:19
Steven R. Lo Vullo
doulos at chorus.net
Sat Jan 13 00:37:47 EST 2001
On 1/12/01 10:03 PM, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> hWN TO TELOS APWLEIA
> hWN hO QEOS hH KOILIA
> KAI hH DOZA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN
> Could I think that the author failed to keep track hWN (whose),
> and says "their glory" rather than "whose glory".
It would seem that KAI hH DOXA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN could be an independent
sentence, especially since KAI doesn't join the other clauses. What do you
> 2) Back to the original issue,
> I think that in all three clauses "whose end", "whose God",
> and "whose glory" are the subjects. The subject of a sentence
> is the entity that the sentence talk about. In discourse
> analysis theory, we often talk about the topic/focus of the discourse.
> Very often the topic/focus is referred to by the subject of a sentence.
> In this case, the author talks about some people, and the focus
> is their end, their God, and their glory. The three clauses answers
> to the questions "what is their end, their God, and their glory?".
> These things are what people are very much conerned about. So it is
> natural that they become the focus of the discourse which talks about
> some people.
These are some very good points.
Steve Lo Vullo,
More information about the B-Greek