b-greek-digest V1 #666

b-greek-digest             Friday, 14 April 1995       Volume 01 : Number 666

In this issue:

        Exad, etc.
        Re: Mounce's book and FlashWorks
        Re: Truth in John/Objectivity  


From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:44:54 -0700
Subject: Exad, etc.

Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>

>>	You might take a look at the Septuagint's translation of it which 

>>comes out in English to "The L-rd our G-d is one L-rd."  According to 

>>_The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ_, by 
>>Schurer, the rabbis in Palestine expressly allowed the _Shema_ to be
>>recited in Greek (Vol. III.1, p. 142), which most probably conformed 
>>the Greek of the Septuagint.

>David, you m,iss the point. I don't really care what the LXX/GB says. 
>have asked you, since you are posting as if you know Hebrew, how you 
>would say that G-d is one, meaning a simple unity and not a compount 
>one. I contend that you don't know Hebrew well enough to answer that, 
>and that what you are writing is jus to confuse.

	To take the discussion into personal questions sheds little light 
on the subject, especially if there is no specific, substantive 
objection to the assertions made.  But since I have been publicly asked 
about my knowledge of Hebrew, I'll have to publicly reply, won't I.

	When I read Hebrew (beyond the first several chapters of 
Genesis), I do it with a lexicon at one elbow and a grammar at the 
other.  Of the former, BDBG is still helpful, and Holladay is a good 
concise lexicon, if one doesn't have access to the full Koehler and 
Baumgartner.  On grammars, Gesenius is old but still useful, and I also 
have the grammar by Rudolf Meyer, a translation (abridged?) of his work 
into Spanish, which gives considerable cognate-language info.  I also 
keep a Strong's nearby and and Even-Shoshan as well.  It's not the 
quickest way to read Hebrew (I would suppose my reading isn't as quick 
as Moshe's), but these are the tools I have for accessing the Hebrew 

	I don't claim to have mastered all the info in these books, but I 
reference them in my study and can usually tell if someone is 
presenting a specious or vacuous argument from the Hebrew.  I try to 
limit what I say to what I know.  I hope others may form their opinions 
of me and of my knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of my 
Shalom basar shalom,

    David L. Moore                    Director of Education
    Miami, FL, USA                Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com               of the Assemblies of God


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 21:44:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mounce's book and FlashWorks

I will agree with what was here said about FlashWorks: it's a nice and 
well programmed Flash Cards program with the added benefit of nice fonts 
for Greek and Hebrew. I also downloaded and looked carefully at the new 
program ParseWorks (Mac version). One thing that needs to be said about 
ParseWorks is that you need the font files from FlashWorks to make 
ParseWorks show the words properly; secondly, if you happen to be running 
System 7.5.1 with a GX printer, you can't really put the fonts (bit-map 
and PS1) into the fonts folder along with the TT fonts, BUT you can open 
up ParseWorks with ResEdit and install the font resources directly into 
the program. As for the way the morphological forms are set up in 
ParseWorks, it seems rather idiosyncratic to me, but--since it works with 
an ASCII text file, you can build and substitute your own lists (as also 
for FlashWorks) of forms, lexical elements, and termination meanings. 
Good tool for a student and a good, flexible tool for teaching.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:17:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity  

TO: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
cc: merovin@halcyon.com
From: Timster@aol.com

  My reply to David's remarks on Leo's response.

   david said:
>I like your point to Tim about objectivity.  You are right.  Of course, 
>there is absolute.  There is even grasp of it in very rare cases.  

     Let me say that I believe there is an absolute reality, but that are
perceptions of it are never absolute.  When we grasp the Absolute (or rather,
when it grabs us), it is still subjective to our experience and not
objectively provable (which doesn't mean it isn't real).

>Tim is confusing logical types.  What he should say is that, >ordinarily,
there is no plenary grasp or congnition of an or the >absolute.  This fact
does not mean, obviously, that there is no >absolute.  It just means we don't
often or even usually get to it with >our epistemological equipment.  

     Right.  If you will look back at what I said in my post, rather than the
replies, you will see that I agree with you.  Note that I said....

     "What I mean by the "epistimological question"... how do we know what to
believe about life, reality and our own perceptions (and how this effects how
we interpret the texts)?"
    "What it all comes down to is that we cannot prove with _absolute
certainty_ anything empirically.  It means that life itself is an act of
trust and faith-- we must choose what we are to believe is true, since
nothing is provable in an absolute sense."

     I am hard pressed to find where in my previous post (which I reread
carefully) where I said that there wasn't an Absolute reality;  I have only
stated that we cannot verify anything with empirical means with absolute
    The replies to my original post did seem to interpret my statements as
meaning that I believed there isn't an absolute.  For many people to say
"nothing is provable" means "there isn't any absolutes"--- because this is
the hard empirical method: if you can't prove it, it isn't real.  But when it
comes down to it, the truth is that you can't prove anything with _absolute
certainty_ with the empirical method, therefore the need for faith. 

>Tim didn't distinguish between reality and the cognitive process.  >Few do.
 Heisenberg himself did, of course.  

Isn't the empirical process a cognitive one?  Maybe I should have made that
connection clearer.

>Most assume either that because their cognition is conditioned >reality is,
or that their cognition coincides with reality.  Both >assumptions are
fallacious, obviously.  Thanks for your note.

I agree with you.  In fact, I am mostly arguing against the second view.



End of b-greek-digest V1 #666


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: