b-greek-digest V1 #891
b-greek-digest Friday, 6 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 891
In this issue:
Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Revitalizing the Christian Faith....
McGuire's Exhortation re: Logos
Re: Philistines vs. Foreigners
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Re: The aorist = unmarked aspect
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
As a Greek Professor, I am sorry to clutter up your mailboxes, but I must
clear up a little matter here regarding Logos which I feel offers the best
software out there for Greek and Hebrew and other tools even on CD Rom.
On 10-04-95, L. E. Brown writes:
<Attached is a copy of an e-mail message I sent to Logos Research
<Systems concerning their technical support. I have posted it hear just
<to warn those who are considering this product to think twice. I still
<think it is the finest software out there, but unless you are
<technically inclined, know how computer programmers think and can
<figure things out without tech support, you'd better think twice.
I find your reference to Logos very un-Christlike. Logos is a good company.
They have the best product out there in my opinion. They got back to me the
next day. But you must have patience. You have been affected by the world
so much that you are reacting like those in the world. You demand what you
want, you think you deserve better, and by golly if you don't get it, you
will do damage!
Remember the blessings God has given you that you can get what you have.
Don't demand more. 100 years ago you wouldn't even have this convenience.
Furthermore, you would have to wait a week to get your mail in times before
I am not saying that Logos shouldn't have planned better, but their sales are
phenominal and they can't keep up. Give a little grace, have mercy. God has
had mercy on you.
With the concern of Christ,
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:59:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
In a message dated 95-10-05 10:15:10 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul
Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church) writes:
>To argue that an anarthrous noun is definite in a context where it occurs
>earlier with the article may be a begging of the question. How does one,
>then, explain the significance of the repeated use of the article (e.g.,
>the anaphoric article)? Furthermore, how would the author express a
>qualitative force of the noun, if it already occurred with the article?
>Certainly, your appealing to John 1:1 as an example is way off base.
>The qualitative force of theos in 1:1c is far preferrable to
>definiteness, as that would equate the Logos to God the Father (1:1b).
>Do not appeal to Colwell's Rule here, as its application here has been
>shown to be incorrect.
Paul, you must not read into people's answer. I did not say that the
succeeding NOMOS was "definite." Neither was I saying that the succeeding
THEOS in John 1:1 was "definite." I was merely showing the practice of Koine
Greek to use the article and then commonly leave it off of successive
occurrence's in the same context, to which you will find good backing in A.T.
Robertson's grammar. The succeeding references are defined or identified by
the predecessor. All words are defined by their context and this is one of
the KEY ways to accurately see the context. And if you will study the
context of Romans 3:19-20 you will see this practice.
I find the remarks which belittle to be distasteful and lacking scholarship.
You fail to show any conclusive proof for your view against what I said.
And you read into the person's response without carefully considering what
he said. You are not the only one to do this. I only wish to bring us all
together so we can support one another and sharpen one another peacefully as
Christ would have wanted us to do.
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:59:10 -0400
Subject: Revitalizing the Christian Faith....
I have some helpful information on a not-for-profit Christian journal
called The Living Pulpit. It's ecumenical and its articles represent
some of the best theological minds in the world.
The Living Pulpit was founded by David H.C. Read and Walter
J. Burghardt, S.J. Each issue explores one major theme,
such as Hope, Faith, Love, Evil, Justice, Earth, Prayer, Anger,
Jesus, Forgiving, Conflict, Community, Grace, Suffering, Life,
and so on. The journal is filled with vibrant, effective messages
that provide inspiration and insight into major Christian issues.
If you would like to find out more about The Living Pulpit, send e-mail to
"LIVPULPIT@AOL.com" with your name and address (U.S. mail) and a
brochure will be sent to you.
Many have found the journal to be quite informative and helpful and to
provide renewed enthusiasm for the Christian faith. I hope this information
From: "L. E. Brown" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 00:46:00 GMT
Subject: McGuire's Exhortation re: Logos
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:59:06 -0400, you wrote:
>As a Greek Professor, I am sorry to clutter up your mailboxes, but I must
>clear up a little matter here regarding Logos which I feel offers the best
>software out there for Greek and Hebrew and other tools even on CD Rom.
>I find your reference to Logos very un-Christlike.
Please identify that part of my nessage that was un-Christlike. Did I
slander them? No. Was I unkind to them? No; in fact, I stated in the
message that I still believe that it is the finest piece of research
software out there. Was I honest about their current technical
support? Yes; they currently promise only a seven day turnaround. Did
I tell people to _not_ buy Logos 2.0? No; I warned those who don't
understand how programmers think and need extensive support to get up
and running to think twice before buying. I think that was sound
advice and I stand by it.
I spoke the truth in love and I owed it to those I had advised to
purchase the Logos product to tell the truth about my experience with
If I have slandered them, lied about them, discredited them as persons
or said anything knowingly or unknowingly untrue, please point it out
to me. I will then repent in sackcloth and ashes.
In lieu of that, I wonder if you'd like to reconsider your message.
>Logos is a good company.
All of my dealings with them have been pleasant. I was a beta tester
and found them to be responsive to suggestions. I have no qualms with
the people in the company, nor with the company's vision. And, they
are clearly doing yeoman service for the kingdom!
> They have the best product out there in my opinion.
>They got back to me the
>next day. But you must have patience. You have been affected by the world
>so much that you are reacting like those in the world. You demand what you
>want, you think you deserve better, and by golly if you don't get it, you
>will do damage!
Please have the courtesy to investigate the matter further before you
paint me with the carnal brush on this or any other mailing list. I
admonish you to consider James 1:19. You do not know all of the
details in this situation, nor do you need to.
>Remember the blessings God has given you that you can get what you have.
> Don't demand more. 100 years ago you wouldn't even have this convenience.
> Furthermore, you would have to wait a week to get your mail in times before
Please remember that when Logos enters into a commercial contract
there is an explicit warrant of technical support. By any imaginable
standard in this industry, a seven day turnaround on tech support
calls is unacceptable.
>I am not saying that Logos shouldn't have planned better, but their sales are
>phenominal and they can't keep up. Give a little grace, have mercy. God has
>had mercy on you.
>With the concern of Christ,
Dr. L. E. Brown, Jr. West Sedona Baptist Church
"Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"
From: Ken Penner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:01:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Philistines vs. Foreigners
On 3 Oct 95 at 6:11, Carolivia Herron wrote:
> I'm reading 1 Chronicles in Hebrew and in the Septuagint,
> and I'm wondering if there is some political (or other)
> reason why the Septuagint uses the Greek work for
> foreigner to translate the word Philistine. Can
> someone help me in this?
I don't have an explanation, but just yesterday when working on
Judges 13-16, I noticed a related phenomenon: codex A uses
ALLOFULWN and B uses FULISTIIM. Exceptions in B include 14:1,4.
The best reason we could come up with in class is that the editor
of A was explaining "Philistines" for his readers. But if that is
the case, why did the he not explain SIKERA (13:4)?
Greek T.A., Regent College, Vancouver
New Home page location: http://netshop.net/~mwardle/kpenner.htm
From: Stephen Carlson <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 22:33:33 EDT
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
> II. JOHN 1:1 INTERPRETATION OF THEOS (GOD) WITHOUT THE ARTICLE
> There are those who do not see the Word being declared to be God, but rather
> they say He is "a god." They say this because there is no article before the
> final "theos" (God) in John 1:1. But as you will see, this is all quite
> normal in Greek.
[* * *]
Regarding Jn1:1c, I'll just make a point I don't recall was made in
the recent discussion of last August. John 8:54 (... hOTI hHMWN QEOS
ESTIN) is another example of an anarthrous, predicate QEOS preceeding
the copula. In context it is clearly definite, for it means "that he
is our God" not "that he is a god of ours."
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
firstname.lastname@example.org : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
From: David Moore <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 23:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The aorist = unmarked aspect
Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu> wrote:
> As one who has served his sentence for writing overmuch on Greek tenses
>many times over, may I write in (almost) total support of Bruce Terry's post
>on the aorist. (The "almost" means that I am not a Prague school linguist,
>but a committed transformational-generative, or Chomskyan, grammarian.) But
>in any case, the issue of the aorist has been pretty well settled, I thought,
>It turns out to be just what the grammarians 2000 years ago called it --
>"unmarked" or undefined. The indicative marks tenses (augment, etc.).
>Other moods do not, and the aorist is plainly the unmarked "tense"
>(read, correctly, "aspect").
Some months ago, there was considerable discussion on b-greek
having to do with aspect and tense. Several of the list members said that
the most recent thinking is that even in the indicative, tense is not
grammatically encoded (Porter, et al.). This seems overstated to me.
Although grammatical indications of tense cannot be taken as written in
concrete, there does seem to be general rules that afford the interpreter
guidelines that should not be departed from without good reason.
Since Edward Hobbs mentions above that "the indicative marks
tenses (augment, etc.)," I'm wondering if he, as someone who has been at
Greek long enough to see different schools of grammatical interpretation
come and go, thinks the divorce of tense from grammatical form is really a
sea change, or just a passing vogue.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
firstname.lastname@example.org Department of Education
End of b-greek-digest V1 #891
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
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: