From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 23 1997 - 13:15:53 EDT
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:43:21 -0400 Jim Beale <email@example.com> writes:
>A friend and I were discussing this sentence:
> KAI OUK EGINWSKEN AUTHN hEWS hOU ETEKEN hUION
> (Mt 1:25)
>the other day and we couldn't decide on the force of hEWS. Does
>"not X hEWS Y" imply "META Y, X" or not?
Jim, so good to hear from you again. Was on the way out, then saw
your post. Couldn't resist. It takes only one example to the contrary
to refute implication, as you know. One quick one comes to mind,
1 Cor 1:8, hOS KAI BEBAIWSEI hUMAS hEWS KOINWNIAN TOU
hUIOU AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN.
He will confirm you blameless until (hEWS) the end. Does this imply
that afterwards He will not confirm us blameless? I don't think so.
Reminds me of the use of ACRI in Rev 20:5. Many have inferred from
this that the rest of the dead come to life after the 1000 years. Hence,
one of the bases for premillennialism. But, the use of ACRI does not
necessitate this at all (cf Rom 5:13 - for until [ACRI] law sin was in
world; does this mean after the law, sin is no longer in the world?).
But, the argument against certain church views (you know what I mean
is not dependent upon this verse.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT