infinitive -> finite verb
waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Thu May 23 13:05:13 EDT 2002
I have this to ask of you
> > > 1TIM. 2:8 BOULOMAI OUN PROSEUCESQAI TOUS ANDRAS
> EN PANTI TOPWi EPAIRONTAS
> > > hOSIOUS CEIRAS CWRIS ORGHS KAI DIALOGISMOU. 9
> hWSAUTWS [KAI] GUNAIKAS EN
> > > KATASTOLHi KOSMIWi META AIDOUS KAI SWFROSUNHS
> KOSMEIN hEAUTAS, MH EN
> > > PLEGMASIN KAI CRUSIWi H MARGARITAIS H hIMATISMWi
> POLUTELEI, 10 ALL' hO
> > > PREPEI GUNAIXIN EPAGGELLOMENAIS QEOSEBEIAN, DI'
> ERGWN AGAQWN. 11 GUNH EN
> > > hHSUCIAi MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi: 12
> DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI
> > > OUK EPITREPW
> > > OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN hHSUCIAi.
> The Greek word here in verse 11 is GUNH.
> This does not mean
> "women" - it means "woman". And "wife". Ditto verse
> 12 - singular. This is
> not a minor matter, changing this singular to a
> plural. It makes the
> reference become one relating to women in general,
> and thus gives a basis
> (albeit a false one) for making this passage relate
> to women in general
> (notice how Iver uses the plural throughout his
It appears to me that Iver takes into consideration
the entire paragraph, while you are commenting on a
portion of the entire paragraph. The paragraph does
reference women (plural), both at the beginning and
What is your justification for taking the woman
(singular) as perhaps unrelated to the preceding women
and the ending women.
Since this paragraph ends back with women (plural), it
seems to make a sandwich of the entire paragraph
beginning where Iver began. I really am not arguing
whether or not this refers to a wife or a woman, or
whether the woman of your verses is a representative
of the women in the entire paragraph. I am just
looking for justification on seemingly removing the
portion on woman from the larger portion on women.
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
More information about the B-Greek