b-greek-digest V1 #819

b-greek-digest             Friday, 11 August 1995       Volume 01 : Number 819

In this issue:

        Latin Vocabulary Software
        Re: addendum, LITV Bibles
        re: Re: Colwell rule (fwd)
        Jay Green's Translation 
        ...no subject... 
        Re: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
        Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew" 


From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 09:39:11 EET
Subject: Latin Vocabulary Software

Re: Latin Vocabulary Software.

In Holland there exists a great programme, made by a team from the nijmegen 
University. I only know the Dutch version, but perhaps they already made an 
English one.
Write to: SOS Software,
	  Johan van Kleefstraat 10
	  6584 AM  Molenhoek
	  The Netherlands.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema                 |Research Assistant Vrije Universiteit
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl  |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl                     |De Boelelaan 1105,  1081 HV  Amsterdam,  NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Marcel CoumontBeisig <mcb@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 01:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: addendum, LITV Bibles

On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, Paul Watkins wrote:

[Much narishkeit deleted]

> times and made corrections on it.  Any more questions?
Why don't you go back to selling second hand cars? 

Best wishes,


> Paul Watkins
> (707)-224-9095


From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: Re: Colwell rule (fwd)

	Colwell himself, and many others since, failed to properly apply 
the rule he created.  The misapplication is a typical assertion of the 
converse of the conditional.  His rule (definite predicate nominatives 
preceding the verb tend to be anarthrous) is not the same thing as 
saying, "anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb tend to be 
definite."  It is like saying, 'If B, then A' follows from 'If A, then B.'
	Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives, then 
asserted the probability of articularity.  If his rule is valid, its only 
application may be in textual criticism where the probability of 
articularity may help to determine which alternative readings is 
correct.  But, then again, should we not opt for the more difficult reading?
	What I did in my thesis was to consider anarthrous predicate 
nominatives in John, then determine the probability of definiteness, 
indefiniteness, or qualitativeness.
	Again, I'll happily forward the conclusion of my thesis on to 
anybody who requests it.
	One more thing.  JWs have apparently misunderstood my thesis.  
Just because I reject Colwell's Rule at Jn 1:1 does not mean I prefer a 
definite rendering.  The probability of qualitativeness is quite high.  
Besides, the immediate context (first two clauses of 1:1, and 1:14) argue 
for it.
	Paul Dixon

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 7:56:10 -24000
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
To: pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org
Subject: re: Re: Colwell rule (fwd)

[Please excuse my difficulty in grasping some of this.  I have only had one 
year of Greek and am reading Young's grammar in preparation for 2nd year 
Greek--which starts in 2 weeks.  The Colwell rule and other things like 
Granville Sharp are terms I've come across in my reading, but are not things 
we learned in 1st year Greek.]

When you say [re:  my quote from Young's grammar] "this is an excellent 
example of those who have erroneously applied Colwell's rule," are you 
referring to Young himself?  He gives 2 ways to respond to the NWT rendering 
of John 1:1c:

  -	the first way (which Young prefers) being applying the Colwell rule 	
	and saying that QEOS is definite in its own right [and also monadic];

  -	the second way (which Young does not opt for) being that QEOS is 	
	being used in a qualitative sense.

Are you saying that Young, by choosing the first way or view, is wrongly 
applying the Colwell rule, and that he should choose the second way because 
QEOS is qualitative?



From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:21:11 -0400
Subject: Jay Green's Translation 

In a message dated 95-08-10 01:25:09 EDT, you write:

> Jay P Green is 
>among the world's top translators and textual critics, and used solely 
>the text of the RECEIVED TEXT (from which the KJV was translated).  His 
>version stands alone in a gloomy sea of modern (per)versions, and brings 
>to the reader the glorious Word of God in undiluted, uncorrupted, 
>non-interpretive form.

Excuse me?  Jay Green is a wonderful guy---I'm appreciative of much of what
he's done, but please, among the world's top translator's and textual
critics???  That's like saying I'm among the top bicyclists in all the
world---I could survive about 1/4 of the Tour de France stages if I could
take them about one a week or so, but that doesn't quite cut it.

What is here called "undiluted, uncorrupted, non-interpretive form" could be
described by someone else as "wooden, obtuse, unintelligible form."

*           Recte Ambulamus ad Veritatem Evangelii          *
*                        James White                        *
*  Scholar In Residence          Director of Ministries     *
*  College of Christian Studies  Alpha and Omega Ministries *
*  Grand Canyon University       Orthopodeo@aol.com         *
*          Adjunct Professor---Golden Gate Seminary         *


From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 16:33:19 -24000
Subject: ...no subject... 

unsubscribe b-greek eric weiss


From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 22:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, David Moore wrote:

> >subject in question.   In most situations, I have come to the 
> conclusion
> >that personal e-mail should be cited as personal communications, which 
> is
> >enough to indicate that the information is not original to the author
> >without making any promises that the source will act as a reference.  
> (co-
> >incidentally this is the solution suggested by about half of my
> >respondents).  However a  posting to a list (like this summary) which 
> is
> >available to anyone and which can be accessed without contacting the
> >author directly should be cited according to the style guide of your 
> choice
> >or in such a way that it can be easily found.
> >
> >Heather Anderson
> >hmanders@indiana.edu

I myself would be VERY hesitant to quote in print any e-mail posting,
whether private or to a list, without first giving the person
in question the opportunity to modify the remarks to be quoted, or
even to decline to be quoted at all.  Some of the lists these days have
really interesting contributions from folks with scholarly reputations.
Some of the interest is due to the willingness of these people to
write more experimentally or colloquially online than in print.
I can't think of any wetter rag to throw over this still-new kind of
forum than the threat that a careless or tentative offhand remark might 
end up being "outed" into the print world by someone else.  In some cases
it might be perfectly clear that the statement to be quoted
is uncontroversial and consistent with its author's printed opinions
or both, but in general I would say:  get permission.  E-mail is not
print, and the same rules (in my humble opinion, of course) don't apply.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 00:01:24 -0400
Subject: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew" 

David Willis here, 

Many of us, whether we have or have not accepted the Calvinistic concept of
"impossibility of apostacy" have had some difficulty understanding what is
meant by "it is impossible to renew them to repentance" in Heb. 6:6.  Some
may say that Heb. 6:6 is properly understood to say that a person who is
saved and falls away can never be saved again, but I think that most would
reject that implication.  But I think that our common "explanation" of this
passage might also be a bit off the mark.  The "impossiblity" of a person's
being renewed unto repentance after falling away, usually is explained by the
distinction between one's "repenting himself" and someone _else_ renewing him
to repentance.  That is,  it sort of implies that while the apostate may
"pull himself up by the bootstraps" and "renew himself", no one can help
bring this about.  

While reading these verses Sunday, I noticed something that might indicate a
different understanding of them which at least for me, was one I hadn't
considered before.  The tense of the aorist participles "were enlightened",
"tasted", "made partakers" and "fell away" changes to a present participle
for "crucify afresh" and "put to an open shame".  There is also the use of
the adverb "once" along with the aorists which accentuates the purposeful
time distinction being made.  In Greek, the tense of the participle indicates
the time of action of the participle in relation to the leading verb.
 Present participle means at the same time as, aorist means previous to the
time of the leading verb, which here is  ~adunaton~ "it is impossible."  The
impenitent HAD tasted... and fallen away etc.  prior to this "becoming
impossible", but their actions of crucifying afresh and shaming were still in
an ongoing state.  It was this continuing ongoing offense against Christ that
is the cause of this impossibility.  So long as that state continues, no one,
not the impenitent himself nor anyone else can bring about a renewal.  But
this would not mean that either the impenitent or another could not help
bring a cessation to the offense, so that the obstacle to "renewing" would be

The English "seeing" of the ASV and KJV and especially the "since" of the
NASB suggests some explanitory or causal preposition here.  But there is (as
far as I could find in checking for variants) no preposition at all, just the
juxtoposition of the time relationships of the aorist and present participles
to serve as the basis for translating the word "since" here.  The words
"since" and "seeing" do imply some sense of causation rather than a temporal
meaning.  (The word "since" in English DOES have a time significance too,
like "ever since", but we usually think of it as indicating a reason or
cause.)  This suggests to me that a better translation might be "SO LONG AS
they crucify afresh..." which would imply that there is no permanence to the
condition of "impossibility" but it remains only so long as they continue to
"crucify and shame" Christ.  Interestingly, the footnote for the ASV here
confirms this "time rather than cause" indication.  It suggests that instead
of "seeing..." the translation could be "the while...", which is a little
awkward, but conveys the time significance less ambiguously.  

I would suggest that with this meaning, we should be more resolute in never
giving up on an effort to bring about the return to faithfulness of a fallen
brother.  It DOESN'T have to be all left up to them, because (as some have
said) Heb. 6:6 tells us they can't be outwardly influenced.  Instead, Heb.
6:6 teaches that this impossibility is ongoing "the while" there is this
ongoing hindering state, and we may rightfully hope that our efforts can help
to convince the impenitent to stop continuing in that state, so that their
repentance and renewal is no longer "impossible."  

David Willis
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN  46236
(317) 823-4858


From: MelLawrenz@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 00:36:43 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe 



End of b-greek-digest V1 #819


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: