baptism for the dead - is thread needed?

dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Mar 10 14:41:01 EST 2001




On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:50:44 -0700 "Wayne Leman" <wleman at mcn.net> writes:
> David said:
> 
> > This discussion does not seem to be centered on a
> > grammatical issue but rather the adoption of an explanatory
> > framework upon which to base a translation. As a result, 
> > this may be beyond the scope of this list.  I believe that there
> > is a translation-list somewhere.

I merely responded to Henryk's question concerning the taking of hUPER in
1 Cor 14:29 in its normal sense.  He questioned it, since it seemed to
lead to a foreign scriptural position. If anything, I was arguing for
retaining its normal sense, and exposed the faulty assumption taken by
many that Paul was condoning baptism for the dead, since he didn't
condemn it.  I showed the contextual framework where Paul had been
arguing by assumption-for-the-sake-of-argument methodology only to show
that this is how we must understand v. 29.  Assumption for the sake of
argument certainly does not mean the position being assumed is actually
believed by the arguer.   In fact, it usually means just the opposite. 

This was not a translation issue.  I never argued for any particular
translation.  It was, rather, a defense of the normal meaning of hUPER.

Paul Dixon




More information about the B-Greek mailing list