[B-Greek] 1 John 1:5

George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Feb 17 09:39:36 EST 2005


On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:21:46 -0600 "Charles Rempel"
<CharlesR at mygalaxyexpress.com> writes:
> Hi George,
> 
> I would presume then that you also take Revelation 22:5 to be 
> metaphorical?
> Is the reason that you take them to be metaphorical because they 
> are
> visions?
> 
> Charles
_________________

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:38:23 -0600 "Charles Rempel"
> <CharlesR at mygalaxyexpress.com> writes:
> > Question Part 2: O QEOS ESTIN FWS
> >
> > Givens:
> > The anarthrous substantive is qualitative.
> > FWS ESTIN O QEOS is not equivalent to O QEOS ESTIN FWS
> >
> > Does Revelation 21:23 give enough information to allow for the
> > semantic
> > range of meaning to include a literal understanding behind the
> > metaphor of O
> > QEOS ESTIN FWS?
> >
> > KAI H POLIS OU XREIAN EXEI TOU HLIOU OUDE THS SELHNHS INA 
> FAINWSIN
> > AUTH, H
> > GAR DOXA TOU
> > QEOU EFWTISEN AUTHN, KAI O LUXNOS AUTHS TO ARNIOU.
> >
> >
> > Charles D. Rempel
> > 30 Year Student
> > Without Portfolio
> __________________
> 
> Charles,
> 
> No.  I think it is evident that Re 21.23 is a metaphorical usage.  
> It is
> not meant to be taken literally.
> 
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________

We are getting away from the discussion of Greek and into the area of
expositon so I'll limit my response to one sentence after which we'd
better drop it.  Yes, a vision sets forth the message of the passage in
pictorial form in classical prophecy we encounter such in, e.g. Amos'
vision of summer fruit (though there the explanation is also given) or
Jeremiah's vision of the pot tilted from the north (again, the
explanation is given), likewise the New Jerusalem is described as the
Bride and thus not literally a city and is therefore not to be taken
literally as a city.  Anything further had best be offlist.

george
gfsomsel
___________



More information about the B-Greek mailing list