Some reasons why cessationism has become a dead worldview

swordsman1 · Jan 13, 2016

Biblicist said:
Here's where I grant that I am placing you at a disadvantage in that as you have lacked prior exposure to the various lexicons that you have understandably been unable to interpret the material that they are presenting. . . and I have little doubt that there will be others who are in the same boat; but there are of course those who will have the experience required to understand what they are reading - there the ones that this thread has been primarily directed towards.

The learning process certainly takes some time but you need to avoid trying to force fit your worldview back into the lexicons; don't forget, the material from within these lexicons and dictionaries is one of the reasons that cessationism is theologically dead in the water.

Overall you certainly seem to be trying a bit too hard to support your worldview, which you've demonstrated by how you seem to think that by finding the English word "language" anywhere within the body of a given text that this somehow allows you to incorrectly believe that the lexicons are saying language is either the primary meaning of phone or what it means for a particular verse. It's a shame that you have been able to grasp the importance of the BGAD's "a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language . . ."

As for the EDNT, you might need to go back and read it again a few more times!

Nonsense. Read them again. They each include 3 definitions for φωνή, one of which is 'language'. Three of them even tell you the verses that use that definition - 1 Cor 14:10 & 2 Pet 2:16!

Gingrich Greek Lexicon:
φωνή
φωνή, ῆς, ἡ
—1. sound, tone, noise Mt 2:18; Lk 1:44; J 3:8; 1 Cor 14:7f; Rv 4:5; 6:1; 8:13b; 9:9; 10:7; 19:6b.

—2. voice—a. generally Mt 27:46, 50; Lk 17:13, 15; 19:37; J 5:25, 28; Ac 7:57; 12:14; Hb 3:7, 15; Rv 5:2. Tone Gal 4:20.—b. call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration Mk 15:37; Lk 23:23; Ac 12:22; 13:27; 19:34; 2 Pt 1:17f.—c. a voice speaks from heaven Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; J 12:28; Ac 7:31; 22:7, 9; Rv 14:13; 19:5.—d. special cases: ἐπέστρεψα βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged) Rv 1:12. φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (listen!) someone is calling in the desert Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4. John the Baptist applies these words to himself the voice of one calling in the desert J 1:23.

—3. language 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16. [phonetic] [pg 214]

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (1891): (BibleWorks9)

5660 φωνή
φωνή, φωνῆς, ἡ (φάω) to shine, make clear (cf. Curtius, sec. 407; Liddell and Scott, under the word φάω)), from Homer down, Hebrew קוֹל:

1. a sound, tone: of inanimate things, as of musical instruments, Matt. 24:31 (T omits φωνῆς, WH give it only in marginal reading; cf. Buttmann, sec. 132, 10); 1 Cor. 14:7f; Rev. 14:2; 18:22 (Isa. 18:3; 24:8; Sir. 50:16; 1 Macc. 5:31; ὀργάνων, Plato, de rep. 3, p. 397a; συριγγων, Euripides, Tro. 127; ψαλτηρίου καί αὐλοῦ, Plutarch, mor., p. 713 c.); of wind, John 3:8; Acts 2:6; of thunder, Rev. 6:1; 14:2; 19:6, cf. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18; noise, of a millstone, Rev. 18:22; of a thronging multitude, Rev. 19:1, 6; of chariots, Rev. 9:9; of wings, whir (Ezek. 1:24), ibid.; of waters (Ezek. 1:24; 4 Esdr. 6:17), Rev. 1:15; 14:2; 19:6; also with the genitive of a thing implying speech, the sound (A. V. voice): τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, Luke 1:44; ῥημάτων, Heb. 12:19; the cry (of men), φωνή μεγάλη, a loud cry, Mark 15:37; the clamor of men making a noisy demand, Luke 23:28, cf. Acts 19:34; absolutely, a cry i. e. wailing, lamentation, Matt. 2:18 (from Jer. 38:15 (Jer. 31:15)).

2. a voice, i. e. the sound of uttered words: λαλεῖν φωνάς, Rev. 10:3; those who begin to cry out or call to anyone are said τήν φωνήν αἴρειν, Luke 17:13; πρός τινα, Acts 4:24; φωνήν ἐπαίρειν, Luke 11:27; Acts 2:14; 14:11; 22:22; (φωνῆς ... ἐκέκραξα (or ἐκκράζειν), Acts 24:21 (cf. Buttmann, sec. 143, 11)); φωνή μεγάλη added to verbs: to λέγειν, Rev. 5:12; 8:13; (ἐν φωνή μεγάλη Rev. 14:7 (Lachmann omits ἐν; 14:9)); to εἰπεῖν, Luke 8:28; Acts 14:10; to φάναι, Acts 26:24; to αἰνεῖν τόν Θεόν, Luke 19:37; with verbs of crying out, shouting: ἀναβοαν, Matt. 27:46 (R G L text T); βοᾶν (Matt. 27:46 L marginal reading Tr WH); Mark 15:34; Acts 8:7; φώνειν, (Mark 1:26 T Tr WH); Luke 23:46; Acts 16:28 ; (Rev. 14:18 L T Tr WH); ἀναφωνεῖν, Luke 1:42 (R G L Tr marginal reading); κηρύσσειν (ἐν φωνή μεγάλη), Rev. 5:2 (Rec. omits ἐν); κραυγάζειν, John 11:43; ἀνακράζειν, Luke 4:33; κράζειν. Matt. 27:50; Mark 1:26 (R G L); 5:7; Acts 7:57,60; Rev. 6:10; 7:2,10; 10:3; (18:2 Rec.); 19:17; κράζων ἐν φωνή μεγάλη Rev. 14:15; ἐν ἰσχυρά φωνή, Rev. 18:2 (G L T Tr WH); μετά φωνῆς μεγάλης δοξάζων τόν Θεόν, Luke 17:15; of declarations from heaven, heard through no speaker is seen: ἰδού φωνή λέγουσα, Matt. 3:17; 17:5; ἔρχεται φωνή, Mark 9:7 (R G L Tr text); John 12:28; ἐξέρχεται, Rev. 16:17; 19:5; γίνεται φωνή, Mark 1:11 (T omits; WH brackets ἐγένετο; 9:7 T Tr marginal reading WH); Luke 3:22; 9:35f; John 12:30; (Acts 7:31 (where Rec. adds πρός αὐτόν)); πρός τινα, Acts 10:13,15; (φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ, 2 Pet. 1:17); ἐγένοντο φωναί μεγάλαι, Rev. 11:15; (ἀπεκρίθη φωνή, Acts 11:9); ἀκούειν φωνήν (cl. Buttmann, sections 132, 17; 144, 16 α.), Acts 9:4; 22:9 ,(14); 26:14; 2 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 1:10; 4:1 (Buttmann, sec. 129, 8 b.); Rev. 6:6 (here L T Tr WH insert ὡς), Rev. 6:7 (here G omits; Tr brackets φωνήν); Rev. 9:13 (Buttmann, as above); 10:4 ,8; 11:12 (R G L WH marginal reading); 12:10; 14:2; 18:4; 19:6; ἀκούειν φωνῆς (Buttmann, sec. 132, 17; Winer's Grammar, sec. 30, 7d.), Acts 9:7; 11:7; 22:7; Rev. (11:12 T Tr WH text); 14:13; 16:1; 21:3; βλέπειν τήν φωνήν, i. e. the one who uttered the voice, Rev. 1:12. φωνή with a genitive of the subject: βοῶντος, Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23, all from Isa. 40:3; (ἀγγέλου ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, Rev. 10:7); ἡ φωνή τίνος, the natural (familiar) sound of one's voice, Acts 12:14; Rev. 3:20 (Cant. 5:2); the manner of speaking, as a shepherd's (cry or call to iris sheep), John 10:3-5; to such `voices' Jesus likens his precepts approved (`heard') by all the good, John 10:16,27, cf. 18:37; ἀνθρώπου, human utterance, 2 Pet. 2:16; φωνή τίνος, the voice of a clamorous person, Matt. 12:19 (Isa. 42:2); of one exulting, jubilant, John 3:29; Rev. 18:23; ἀγγέλων πολλῶν, singing the praises of Christ, Rev. 5:11f; the sound of the words of Christ as he shall recall the dead to life (the Resurrection-cry), John 5:25,28; ἀρχαγγέλου, the awakening shout of the archangel, the leader of the angelic host, 1 Thess. 4:16; τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God -- teaching, admonishing, whether in the O. T. Scriptures or in the gospel, John 5:37; Heb. 3:7,15; 4:7; shaking the earth, Heb. 12:26; the speech, discourse, Θεοῦ ... οὐκ ἀνθρώπου, Acts 12:22; (τάς φωνάς τῶν προφητῶν, the predictions (`read every sabbath'), Acts 13:27); ἀλλάξαι τήν φωνήν. (See ἀλλάσσω), Gal. 4:20.

3. speech, i. e. a language, tongue: 1 Cor.14:10f (Josephus, contra Apion 1, 1; (1, 9, 2; 1, 14, 1, etc.); Cebes (399 B. C.) tab. 33; Aelian v. h. 12, 48; Diogenes Laërtius 8, 3; for other examples from Greek writings see Passow, under the word, p. 2377{b}; (Liddell and Scott, under the word, II. 3); Gen. 11:1; Deut. 28:49; τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνή, 4 Macc. 12:7; τῇ πατρίῳ φωνή, 2 Macc. 7:8, 21, 27). (Synonym: cf. Schmidt, chapter 1 sec. 27; Trench, sec. lxxxix.; and see λαλέω, at the beginning.)*

BAGD (2nd Edition 1979) p.871
φωνή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+; inscr., pap,. LXX, En., Ep.Artist., Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Par.; Sib. Or. 2, 3).

1. sound, tone, noise the source of which is added in the gen. : of musical instruments . . .

2. voice—
a. a. gener. Any form of speech or other utterance . . .
b. voice as it varies from individual to individual or fr. one mood to another . . .
c. that which the voice gives expression to call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration . . .
d. in accordance w. OT and Jewish usage gener. . .
e. special cases . . . I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged) . . .

3. language

BGAD 3rd Edition (2000) The BGAD is a full revision of the earlier BAGD 2nd Edition.
7858 φωνή
• φωνή, ῆς, ἡ (s. prec. entry; Hom.+).
1. an auditory effect, sound, tone, noise the source of which is added in the gen.: of musical instruments . . .

2. the faculty of utterance, voice (Tat. 15:3 προύχει τῶν θηρίων ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τὴν ἔναρθον φωνήν=humankind excels beasts in articulate utterance) . . .
a. gener. of sonant aspect: any form of speech or other utterance w. the voice can take place . . .
b. voice as it varies from individual to individual or fr. one mood to another
c. that which the voice gives expression to: call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration
d. n accordance w. OT and Jewish usage gener.
e. special cases: ἐπέστρεψα βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged)

3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language . . .

EDNT Dictionary: (condensed)
1. . . .
2. In the NT φωνή, basically refers to what is audible, as suggested by its frequent use with ἀκούω (41 times). It is used both of sounds caused by things (g a) and of human or heavenly voices (g b, c), and also of what is spoken (g d) and the whole system of speech, i.e., language (g e).

a. Φωνή is used of sound, i.e., audible tones and noises in nature and in the human environment, e.g., the rushing of wind . . .

b. Most often φωνή is used of the voice of someone speaking or calling. E.g., Peter "lifted up his voice" (Acts 2:14; cf. 4:24 ; 14:11; 22:22; Luke 11:27; 17:13). "The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God" (John 5:25; cf. the citation of Ps 94:7 LXX in Heb 3:7, 15; 4:7). A voice is often described as loud: "with a loud voice" (Mark 15:34). Sometimes φωνή refers to the distinctive voice of a particular person (Acts 12:14; John 10:4, 5). In Gal 4:20 Paul uses it of the tone, dependent on "mood," in which Paul speaks to the Galatians. In Acts 12:22, too, φωνή probably refers to the element of fascination in Herod — concretely manifested by the sound of his voice — rather than to the content of his words. In a completely different fashion Jesus' wordless cry (Mark 15:37) is the expression of divine power (epiphany? victory? judgment [cf. esp. Matt 27:50 with Joel 4:15f. LXX]?).

c. Often φωνή is used to portray a voice itself as speaking, . . .

d. At times φωνή also refers to the articulated sounds insofar as they say or announce something. Thus the individual tone of a musical instrument can be called φθόγγος (1 Cor 14:7), whereas the ordered sequence of tones, however, is called φωνή, be it the melody of flutes and harps (v. 7) or the signal of a trumpet (v. 8). In the sense of comprehensible utterances or calls, φωνή — sometimes quoted verbatim — refers to the "cry with one voice" in the theater at Ephesus (Acts 19:34), the many-voiced cry of the crowd before Pilate (Luke 23:23), God's call directed to Paul (Acts 22:14), the heavenly voice speaking to Jesus (2 Pet 1:17), Paul's provocative statement (Acts 24:21), and even words of the prophets from the written tradition, though always as they are read aloud (13:27; cf. Mark 1:3 par. Luke 3:4). In Rev 10:4 the calls of the thunders can be written down (v. 3; cf. Ps 29:3-9; though not their "crashing peals," as BAGD [2.c] translates).

e) In isolated instances φωνή means language, in 2 Pet 2:16 human language as opposed to utterances of animals and in 1 Cor 14:10, 11 a foreign language as opposed to one's own.

Biblicist · Jan 14, 2016

swordsman1 said:
Nonsense. Read them again. They each include 3 definitions for φωνή, one of which is 'language'. Three of them even tell you the verses that use that definition - 1 Cor 14:10 & 2 Pet 2:16!

Gingrich Greek Lexicon:
φωνή
φωνή, ῆς, ἡ
—1. sound, tone, noise Mt 2:18; Lk 1:44; J 3:8; 1 Cor 14:7f; Rv 4:5; 6:1; 8:13b; 9:9; 10:7; 19:6b.

—2. voice—a. generally Mt 27:46, 50; Lk 17:13, 15; 19:37; J 5:25, 28; Ac 7:57; 12:14; Hb 3:7, 15; Rv 5:2. Tone Gal 4:20.—b. call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration Mk 15:37; Lk 23:23; Ac 12:22; 13:27; 19:34; 2 Pt 1:17f.—c. a voice speaks from heaven Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; J 12:28; Ac 7:31; 22:7, 9; Rv 14:13; 19:5.—d. special cases: ἐπέστρεψα βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged) Rv 1:12. φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (listen!) someone is calling in the desert Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4. John the Baptist applies these words to himself the voice of one calling in the desert J 1:23.

—3. language 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16. [phonetic] [pg 214]

You will notice that "language" is the least preferable of the three aoptions and the limitation with this particular Lexicon is that it does not provide any reasons for its choice; we do not know if they are referring to intelligible or unintelligble speech.

Their choice of language for 2Pet 2:16 does not appear to have been taken up by the translators where the 23 major translations that I use on my BibleWorks9 database all appear to employ voice which follows how the earlier translators were connecting voice (of an animal) with sound.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (1891): (BibleWorks9)

5660 φωνή
φωνή, φωνῆς, ἡ (φάω) to shine, make clear (cf. Curtius, sec. 407; Liddell and Scott, under the word φάω)), from Homer down, Hebrew קוֹל:

1. a sound, tone: of inanimate things, as of musical instruments, Matt. 24:31 (T omits φωνῆς, WH give it only in marginal reading; cf. Buttmann, sec. 132, 10); 1 Cor. 14:7f; Rev. 14:2; 18:22 (Isa. 18:3; 24:8; Sir. 50:16; 1 Macc. 5:31; ὀργάνων, Plato, de rep. 3, p. 397a; συριγγων, Euripides, Tro. 127; ψαλτηρίου καί αὐλοῦ, Plutarch, mor., p. 713 c.); of wind, John 3:8; Acts 2:6; of thunder, Rev. 6:1; 14:2; 19:6, cf. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18; noise, of a millstone, Rev. 18:22; of a thronging multitude, Rev. 19:1, 6; of chariots, Rev. 9:9; of wings, whir (Ezek. 1:24), ibid.; of waters (Ezek. 1:24; 4 Esdr. 6:17), Rev. 1:15; 14:2; 19:6; also with the genitive of a thing implying speech, the sound (A. V. voice): τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, Luke 1:44; ῥημάτων, Heb. 12:19; the cry (of men), φωνή μεγάλη, a loud cry, Mark 15:37; the clamor of men making a noisy demand, Luke 23:28, cf. Acts 19:34; absolutely, a cry i. e. wailing, lamentation, Matt. 2:18 (from Jer. 38:15 (Jer. 31:15)).

2. a voice, i. e. the sound of uttered words: λαλεῖν φωνάς, Rev. 10:3; those who begin to cry out or call to anyone are said τήν φωνήν αἴρειν, Luke 17:13; πρός τινα, Acts 4:24; φωνήν ἐπαίρειν, Luke 11:27; Acts 2:14; 14:11; 22:22; (φωνῆς ... ἐκέκραξα (or ἐκκράζειν), Acts 24:21 (cf. Buttmann, sec. 143, 11)); φωνή μεγάλη added to verbs: to λέγειν, Rev. 5:12; 8:13; (ἐν φωνή μεγάλη Rev. 14:7 (Lachmann omits ἐν; 14:9)); to εἰπεῖν, Luke 8:28; Acts 14:10; to φάναι, Acts 26:24; to αἰνεῖν τόν Θεόν, Luke 19:37; with verbs of crying out, shouting: ἀναβοαν, Matt. 27:46 (R G L text T); βοᾶν (Matt. 27:46 L marginal reading Tr WH); Mark 15:34; Acts 8:7; φώνειν, (Mark 1:26 T Tr WH); Luke 23:46; Acts 16:28 ; (Rev. 14:18 L T Tr WH); ἀναφωνεῖν, Luke 1:42 (R G L Tr marginal reading); κηρύσσειν (ἐν φωνή μεγάλη), Rev. 5:2 (Rec. omits ἐν); κραυγάζειν, John 11:43; ἀνακράζειν, Luke 4:33; κράζειν. Matt. 27:50; Mark 1:26 (R G L); 5:7; Acts 7:57,60; Rev. 6:10; 7:2,10; 10:3; (18:2 Rec.); 19:17; κράζων ἐν φωνή μεγάλη Rev. 14:15; ἐν ἰσχυρά φωνή, Rev. 18:2 (G L T Tr WH); μετά φωνῆς μεγάλης δοξάζων τόν Θεόν, Luke 17:15; of declarations from heaven, heard through no speaker is seen: ἰδού φωνή λέγουσα, Matt. 3:17; 17:5; ἔρχεται φωνή, Mark 9:7 (R G L Tr text); John 12:28; ἐξέρχεται, Rev. 16:17; 19:5; γίνεται φωνή, Mark 1:11 (T omits; WH brackets ἐγένετο; 9:7 T Tr marginal reading WH); Luke 3:22; 9:35f; John 12:30; (Acts 7:31 (where Rec. adds πρός αὐτόν)); πρός τινα, Acts 10:13,15; (φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ, 2 Pet. 1:17); ἐγένοντο φωναί μεγάλαι, Rev. 11:15; (ἀπεκρίθη φωνή, Acts 11:9); ἀκούειν φωνήν (cl. Buttmann, sections 132, 17; 144, 16 α.), Acts 9:4; 22:9 ,(14); 26:14; 2 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 1:10; 4:1 (Buttmann, sec. 129, 8 b.); Rev. 6:6 (here L T Tr WH insert ὡς), Rev. 6:7 (here G omits; Tr brackets φωνήν); Rev. 9:13 (Buttmann, as above); 10:4 ,8; 11:12 (R G L WH marginal reading); 12:10; 14:2; 18:4; 19:6; ἀκούειν φωνῆς (Buttmann, sec. 132, 17; Winer's Grammar, sec. 30, 7d.), Acts 9:7; 11:7; 22:7; Rev. (11:12 T Tr WH text); 14:13; 16:1; 21:3; βλέπειν τήν φωνήν, i. e. the one who uttered the voice, Rev. 1:12. φωνή with a genitive of the subject: βοῶντος, Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23, all from Isa. 40:3; (ἀγγέλου ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, Rev. 10:7); ἡ φωνή τίνος, the natural (familiar) sound of one's voice, Acts 12:14; Rev. 3:20 (Cant. 5:2); the manner of speaking, as a shepherd's (cry or call to iris sheep), John 10:3-5; to such `voices' Jesus likens his precepts approved (`heard') by all the good, John 10:16,27, cf. 18:37; ἀνθρώπου, human utterance, 2 Pet. 2:16; φωνή τίνος, the voice of a clamorous person, Matt. 12:19 (Isa. 42:2); of one exulting, jubilant, John 3:29; Rev. 18:23; ἀγγέλων πολλῶν, singing the praises of Christ, Rev. 5:11f; the sound of the words of Christ as he shall recall the dead to life (the Resurrection-cry), John 5:25,28; ἀρχαγγέλου, the awakening shout of the archangel, the leader of the angelic host, 1 Thess. 4:16; τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God -- teaching, admonishing, whether in the O. T. Scriptures or in the gospel, John 5:37; Heb. 3:7,15; 4:7; shaking the earth, Heb. 12:26; the speech, discourse, Θεοῦ ... οὐκ ἀνθρώπου, Acts 12:22; (τάς φωνάς τῶν προφητῶν, the predictions (`read every sabbath'), Acts 13:27); ἀλλάξαι τήν φωνήν. (See ἀλλάσσω), Gal. 4:20.

3. speech, i. e. a language, tongue: 1 Cor.14:10f (Josephus, contra Apion 1, 1; (1, 9, 2; 1, 14, 1, etc.); Cebes (399 B. C.) tab. 33; Aelian v. h. 12, 48; Diogenes Laërtius 8, 3; for other examples from Greek writings see Passow, under the word, p. 2377{b}; (Liddell and Scott, under the word, II. 3); Gen. 11:1; Deut. 28:49; τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνή, 4 Macc. 12:7; τῇ πατρίῳ φωνή, 2 Macc. 7:8, 21, 27). (Synonym: cf. Schmidt, chapter 1 sec. 27; Trench, sec. lxxxix.; and see λαλέω, at the beginning.)*

We can ignore Thayer's as it is way out of date.

BAGD (2nd Edition 1979) p.871
φωνή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+; inscr., pap,. LXX, En., Ep.Artist., Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Par.; Sib. Or. 2, 3).

1. sound, tone, noise the source of which is added in the gen. : of musical instruments . . .

2. voice—
a. a. gener. Any form of speech or other utterance . . .
b. voice as it varies from individual to individual or fr. one mood to another . . .
c. that which the voice gives expression to call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration . . .
d. in accordance w. OT and Jewish usage gener. . .
e. special cases . . . I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged) . . .

3. language

BGAD 3rd Edition (2000) The BGAD is a full revision of the earlier BAGD 2nd Edition.
7858 φωνή
• φωνή, ῆς, ἡ (s. prec. entry; Hom.+).
1. an auditory effect, sound, tone, noise the source of which is added in the gen.: of musical instruments . . .

2. the faculty of utterance, voice (Tat. 15:3 προύχει τῶν θηρίων ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τὴν ἔναρθον φωνήν=humankind excels beasts in articulate utterance) . . .
a. gener. of sonant aspect: any form of speech or other utterance w. the voice can take place . . .
b. voice as it varies from individual to individual or fr. one mood to another
c. that which the voice gives expression to: call, cry, outcry, loud or solemn declaration
d. n accordance w. OT and Jewish usage gener.
e. special cases: ἐπέστρεψα βλέπειν τὴν φωνὴν ἥτις ἐλάλει μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ I turned around to see (to whom) the voice that was speaking to me (belonged)

3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language . . .

>> I have only just realised that the BGAD utilizes italics in a different manner to its predecessor the BAGD. When we see a word in a heading that has been placed in italics, this is used by the BGAD to indicate that other lexicons have used this as a key word but that they have chosen not to.

This is particularly interesting as the earlier BAGD had of course used language as a third but less likely option, whereas the BGAD has now removed any connection with the Greek word phone to our English language. It has instead replaced language with "a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings".

As for the translations that have used language for phone in 1Cor 14:10 after the release of the BGAD, it will be up to them to explain why they have chosen a word that the BGAD, which is the most prestigious of all the lexicons decided to remove as an option. It could be that the various translation committees (or even their editors) have based their use of language as being an inarticulate non-human language, which would fit in with "a verbal code" but it would be far easier to go with Paul's choice of phone-sound.

EDNT Dictionary:

Click to expand...

(condensed)
1. . . .
2. In the NT φωνή, basically refers to what is audible, as suggested by its frequent use with ἀκούω (41 times). It is used both of sounds caused by things (g a) and of human or heavenly voices (g b, c), and also of what is spoken (g d) and the whole system of speech, i.e., language (g e).

a. Φωνή is used of sound, i.e., audible tones and noises in nature and in the human environment, e.g., the rushing of wind . . .

b. Most often φωνή is used of the voice of someone speaking or calling. E.g., Peter "lifted up his voice" (Acts 2:14; cf. 4:24 ; 14:11; 22:22; Luke 11:27; 17:13). "The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God" (John 5:25; cf. the citation of Ps 94:7 LXX in Heb 3:7, 15; 4:7). A voice is often described as loud: "with a loud voice" (Mark 15:34). Sometimes φωνή refers to the distinctive voice of a particular person (Acts 12:14; John 10:4, 5). In Gal 4:20 Paul uses it of the tone, dependent on "mood," in which Paul speaks to the Galatians. In Acts 12:22, too, φωνή probably refers to the element of fascination in Herod — concretely manifested by the sound of his voice — rather than to the content of his words. In a completely different fashion Jesus' wordless cry (Mark 15:37) is the expression of divine power (epiphany? victory? judgment [cf. esp. Matt 27:50 with Joel 4:15f. LXX]?).

c. Often φωνή is used to portray a voice itself as speaking, . . .

d. At times φωνή also refers to the articulated sounds insofar as they say or announce something. Thus the individual tone of a musical instrument can be called φθόγγος (1 Cor 14:7), whereas the ordered sequence of tones, however, is called φωνή, be it the melody of flutes and harps (v. 7) or the signal of a trumpet (v. 8). In the sense of comprehensible utterances or calls, φωνή — sometimes quoted verbatim — refers to the "cry with one voice" in the theater at Ephesus (Acts 19:34), the many-voiced cry of the crowd before Pilate (Luke 23:23), God's call directed to Paul (Acts 22:14), the heavenly voice speaking to Jesus (2 Pet 1:17), Paul's provocative statement (Acts 24:21), and even words of the prophets from the written tradition, though always as they are read aloud (13:27; cf. Mark 1:3 par. Luke 3:4). In Rev 10:4 the calls of the thunders can be written down (v. 3; cf. Ps 29:3-9; though not their "crashing peals," as BAGD [2.c] translates).

e) In isolated instances φωνή means language, in 2 Pet 2:16 human language as opposed to utterances of animals and in 1 Cor 14:10, 11 a foreign language as opposed to one's own.

I would have thought that their use of "the whole system of speech" which comprises language that is both articulate and inarticulate would have given you a clue that something was amiss.

You've then failed to address why they said in the fifth option for the use of phone in the NT why they used "in isolated instances"!

The Greek has for "spoke with a human voice" (ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον) or "produced a sound with a human voice" where it seems that the 23 translation committees that I referred to have obviously decided to avoid going with language as the donkey would have had absolutely no idea what it was saying or if it even realised that it was conveying human sounds. If we expected that the donkey understood what it was saying then they could have gone with language but in this case they took the safer option by avoiding our English word language by sticking with a literal rendering.

swordsman1 · Jan 14, 2016

Biblicist said:
You will notice that "language" is the least preferable of the three aoptions and the limitation with this particular Lexicon is that it does not provide any reasons for its choice; we do not know if they are referring to intelligible or unintelligble speech.

Just because a definition is listed third doesn't mean it is any less 'preferable'. It is just one of three possible definitions of the word. It is the context which determines the correct definition. And the context of 1 Cor 14:10-11 is clearly foreign human languages.

None of the lexicons you quoted give reasons for their choice of definitions (including BGAD 3rd Edition). They just give the definition followed by examples of it's use.

We can ignore Thayer's as it is way out of date.

You haven't ignored Thayer's lexicon in the past. You have been happy to refer to it when it suits your purpose. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. You even said Thayer's lexicon was 'superb' here, and 'fabulous' here.

A case of double standards here methinks. Just like your assessment of Bible versions, it is superb when a particular definition helps you, but is rubbished when it doesn't.

I have only just realised that the BGAD utilizes italics in a different manner to its predecessor the BAGD. When we see a word in a heading that has been placed in italics, this is used by the BGAD to indicate that other lexicons have used this as a key word but that they have chosen not to.

In your quote of the BGAD 3rd Edition, the only definition that is in italics is 'sound, tone, noise'. So the definition you think applies to 1 Cor 14:10 is not a key definition according to BGAD.

This is particularly interesting as the earlier had of course used language as a third but less likely option, whereas the BGAD has now removed any connection with the Greek word phone to our English language. It has instead replaced language with "a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings".
As for the translations that have used language for phone in 1Cor 14:10 after the release of the BGAD, it will be up to them to explain why they have chosen a word that the BGAD, which is the most prestigious of all the lexicons decided to remove as an option. It could be that the various translation committees (or even their editors) have based their use of language as being an inarticulate non-human language, which would fit in with "a verbal code" but it would be far easier to go with Paul's choice of phone-sound.

No, it doesn't.

1. an auditory effect, sound ...
2. the faculty of utterance, voice...
3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language ...

The same 3 definitions as the other lexicons. The BGAD headings give the definition 'language' preceded by it's dictionary definition 'a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings'. Same as it does for sound "an auditory effect" and voice "the faculty of utterance".

When I looked it up the full definition I noticed that under the 'language' definition it also lists 1 Cor 14:10 as an example of that definition's usage. So even the lexicon you hail above all overs disagrees with your assertion that 1 Cor:14:10 means 'sound'.

3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language (Aeschyl., Hdt. et al.; Cebes 33, 6; Aelian, VH 12, 48; Herodian 5, 3, 4; Diog. L. 8, 3; SEG VIII, 548, 17 [I B.C.]; PLond I, 77, 13 p. 232 [Christ. VIII A.D.]; PGM 12, 188 πᾶσα γλῶσσα κ. πᾶσα φωνή; Gen 11:1; Dt 28:49; 2 Macc 7:8, 21, 27; 4 Macc 12:7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; 50; 73 al.; Just., A I, 31, 1; Tat. 37, 1; Mel., P. 29, 199) 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16 (an animal w. ἀνθρώπου φ. as Appian, Bell. Civ. 4:4 §14 βοῦς φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν ἀνθρώπου; schol. on Appolon. Rhod. 2, 1146 ὁ κριὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ χρησάμενος φωνῇ; sim. TestAbr A 3 p. 79, 19 [Stone p. 6]; sim. TestAbr B 3 p. 107, 10 [St. p. 62] a tree; ParJer 7:2 an eagle; Philo, Op. M. 156); Dg 5:1. ὁ λέων εἶπεν μιᾷ φωνῇ AcPlHa 5, 4 (on the probability that μια was misread for θεια s. the editor’s note, p. 41, 4).—B. 1248; 1260. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

I would have thought that their use of "the whole system of speech" which comprises language that is both articulate and inarticulate would have given you a clue that something was amiss.

Nothing is amiss. EDNT makes no reference to 'language' being inarticulate.

You've then failed to address why they said in the fifth option for the use of phone in the NT why they used "in isolated instances"!

1 Cor 14:10 is one of those isolated instances, as it points out!

e) In isolated instances φωνή means language, in 2 Pet 2:16 human language as opposed to utterances of animals and in 1 Cor 14:10, 11 a foreign language as opposed to one's own.

You really ought to be more careful with the material you quote. In this instance not only do the vast majority of bible translations disagree with you, but unwittingly the lexicons you quoted as well!

Biblicist · Jan 14, 2016

swordsman1 said:
Just because a definition is listed third doesn't mean it is any less 'preferable'. It is just one of three possible definitions of the word. It is the context which determines the correct definition. And the context of 1 Cor 14:10-11 is clearly foreign human languages.

As you obviously have had little if any exposure to the Lexicons, it might be a worthwhile exercise if you take the time to check out via Google as to how you can better use the various lexicons and concordances; but if you do not plan to use them then this might not really do much for you. With the BGAD the top level divisions are numbered as ❶ . . ❷ . .❸ and the second level categories as ① . . ② . . ③ though my BibleWorks edition differs with how it numbers the BGAD.

So the first definition is always first the primary and then the secondary and so forth. The second level categories are only a breakdown of where or with who a particular word relates to.

This practice varies with the other lexicons and dictionaries.

None of the lexicons you quoted give reasons for their choice of definitions (including BGAD 3rd Edition). They just give the definition followed by examples of it's use.

The dictionaries will certainly do this where they will add in a mixture of both good and not so good commentary and the BGAD certainly provides definitions, but you will have to learn how to read these definitions just as the rest of us have. But as you have probably only ever seen a full BGAD entry from within my posts then you will of course be at a disadvantage.

You haven't ignored Thayer's lexicon in the past. You have been happy to refer to it when it suits your purpose. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. You even said Thayer's lexicon was 'superb' here, and 'fabulous' here.

A case of double standards here methinks. Just like your assessment of Bible versions, it is superb when a particular definition helps you, but is rubbished when it doesn't.

As for “In the past”, do you realise that in life we all move on, where we grow with our understanding and that we need to keep abreast of the changes around us – you should try it sometime!

Do you mean with Link (From 12 months ago) “starting from the humble Strong’s concordance along with the old Thayer’s lexicon, TWOT etc”

As for my copy of the now dated Strong’s Concordance, I relegated this to a carton way back in 1991 when I purchased my NIVEC (NIV Exhaustive Concordance). My old Thayer’s Lexicon was fortunate in that outside of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) the lexical options were a bit light on in those days; it’s only since I recently started to read up on what was available with regard to the better lexicons that I realised that the value of Thayer’s lexicon was with its historical value and little else. Once I purchased the TDNT I packed my hardcopy of Thayer's into a box sometime back in the middle 90's and that was before I even had my BibleWorks program.

It was only a couple of months back that I decided that I should not be quoting from my expensive and almost revered BAGD (2nd Rev) as it had been replaced 15 years back, where the new edition was not only an update but a complete rebuild; but I am finding that I can now compare my hardcopy edition of the older 1979 release with my BibleWorks9 2000 edition. Thankfully I have now realised that the current edition employs italics differently to that of the previous edition.

In your quote of the BGAD 3rd Edition, the only definition that is in italics is 'sound, tone, noise'. So the definition you think applies to 1 Cor 14:10 is not a key definition according to BGAD.

Of the four uses of phone within 1 Cor 14:6-11 the BDAG refers to 14:7 and 14:10 where verse 10 comes under the third definition where language has been placed in italics to indicate that the BDAG has not given any direct support for its use;

1. an auditory effect, sound, tone, noise . . . 1 Cor 14:7f
2. the faculty of utterance, voice . . .
3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language . . . 1 Cor 14:10f

The same 3 definitions as the other lexicons. The BGAD headings give the definition 'language' preceded by it's dictionary definition 'a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings'. Same as it does for sound "an auditory effect" and voice "the faculty of utterance".

When I looked it up the full definition I noticed that under the 'language' definition it also lists 1 Cor 14:10 as an example of that definition's usage. So even the lexicon you hail above all overs disagrees with your assertion that 1 Cor:14:10 means 'sound'.

3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language (Aeschyl., Hdt. et al.; Cebes 33, 6; Aelian, VH 12, 48; Herodian 5, 3, 4; Diog. L. 8, 3; SEG VIII, 548, 17 [I B.C.]; PLond I, 77, 13 p. 232 [Christ. VIII A.D.]; PGM 12, 188 πᾶσα γλῶσσα κ. πᾶσα φωνή; Gen 11:1; Dt 28:49; 2 Macc 7:8, 21, 27; 4 Macc 12:7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; 50; 73 al.; Just., A I, 31, 1; Tat. 37, 1; Mel., P. 29, 199) 1 Cor 14:10f; 2 Pt 2:16 (an animal w. ἀνθρώπου φ. as Appian, Bell. Civ. 4:4 §14 βοῦς φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν ἀνθρώπου; schol. on Appolon. Rhod. 2, 1146 ὁ κριὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ χρησάμενος φωνῇ; sim. TestAbr A 3 p. 79, 19 [Stone p. 6]; sim. TestAbr B 3 p. 107, 10 [St. p. 62] a tree; ParJer 7:2 an eagle; Philo, Op. M. 156); Dg 5:1. ὁ λέων εἶπεν μιᾷ φωνῇ AcPlHa 5, 4 (on the probability that μια was misread for θεια s. the editor’s note, p. 41, 4).—B. 1248; 1260. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

All I can say is that even though it’s good to see you doing a bit of work with the lexicons, or at least with what I have provided on this thread; it is still more than apparent that that you are struggling to connect the dots which is evidenced with your inability to understand what the BDAG has provided.

Nothing is amiss. EDNT makes no reference to 'language' being inarticulate.

Here we go again! Did it make any reference to how language is supposed to be either articulate or inarticulate? If you don't understand the point that I am making then let me know and I will explain it a bit further.

You really ought to be more careful with the material you quote. In this instance not only do the vast majority of bible translations disagree with you, but unwittingly the lexicons you quoted as well!

Tell me . . . is your favourite motto maybe, “Not knowing is half the fun?” In all seriousness, you probably need to spend a couple of more years with the lexicons, dictionaries and commentaries before you attempt to make definitive statements. But then again, if you start to refer to the better sources then this would undoubtedly serve to further unsettle your worldview.

At least your posts are providing me with a bit of a sounding board where others should be able to gain from this thread - so please, keep your posts going!

swordsman1 · Jan 15, 2016

I didn't think it would be long before the put-downs started up again. A sure sign an argument is lost. I will ignore those remarks.

Biblicist said:
As you obviously have had little if any exposure to the Lexicons, it might be a worthwhile exercise if you take the time to check out via Google as to how you can better use the various lexicons and concordances; but if you do not plan to use them then this might not really do much for you. With the BGAD the top level divisions are numbered as ❶ . . ❷ . .❸ and the second level categories as ① . . ② . . ③ though my BibleWorks edition differs with how it numbers the BGAD.

So the first definition is always first the primary and then the secondary and so forth. The second level categories are only a breakdown of where or with who a particular word relates to.

This practice varies with the other lexicons and dictionaries.

But that doesn't answer my point. You said the enumerations designated preferability. That is not true. In any given verse you look at the context to determine which is the more preferable translation, not the order they appear in a lexicon.

Biblicist said:
Do you mean with Link (From 12 months ago) “starting from the humble Strong’s concordance along with the old Thayer’s lexicon, TWOT etc”

Yes that's the one, the one where you then said they were both fabulous.

My old Thayer’s Lexicon was fortunate in that outside of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) the lexical options were a bit light on in those days; it’s only since I recently started to read up on what was available with regard to the better lexicons that I realised that the value of Thayer’s lexicon was with its historical value and little else. Once I purchased the TDNT I packed my hardcopy of Thayer's into a box sometime back in the middle 90's and that was before I even had my BibleWorks program.

If Thayers is such a poor lexicon why do you still refer to it to support your views? Six times in the last 12 months, most recently 2 months ago. That's six times more than you referred to the BGAD and three times more than the BAGD!

Biblicist said:
Of the four uses of phone within 1 Cor 14:6-11 the BDAG refers to 14:7 and 14:10 where verse 10 comes under the third definition where language has been placed in italics to indicate that the BDAG has not given any direct support for its use;
1. an auditory effect, sound, tone, noise . . . 1 Cor 14:7f
2. the faculty of utterance, voice . . .
3. a verbal code shared by a community to express ideas and feelings, language . . . 1 Cor 14:10f

How could you not fail to notice that all the glosses are in italics! Italics do not signify any lack of BGAD support as you suppose. Otherwise all three meanings can be dismissed! The italics are there to differentiate the extended definitions (eg "the faculty of utterance") from the glosses ("voice"). See http://frame-poythress.org/extended...hird-edition-of-bauers-greek-english-lexicon/

But all this is academic. The conclusion to draw is that even the lexicons you quoted have dispelled your theory about 1 Cor 14:10 being 'sound' and affirmed the vast majority of bible versions that have rightly translated it as 'language'. Further proof that tongues in First Corinthians are human languages.

Biblicist · Jan 17, 2016

New topic ___________________

Even though most might find this post a bit complicated it should prove to be of interest to some. It is essentially a 'worksheet' that I produced for my own use where I was trying to understand how the NT speaks of those who are a/Apostles.

The Apostle – do the Scriptures refer to them as being “those who are sent”?

The reason that this has been slotted into this particular thread is that it has an important bearing to the continuing Office of the apostle, though there is certainly a distinction within the Scriptures between those who were once commissioned as “Apostles-of-Christ”, being the Twelve and Paul, as against the local congregational apostle or church planter who is appointed to this Office by his congregation (note the lower case ‘a’ in apostle).

The role itself would equate to those who are church planters, but this does not mean that where someone has started a church plant that they should remain as the kingpin within the congregation for the next 20 years or so. Over recent years there has been an unfortunate development where some have established themselves as a/Apostles, but instead of their role being as a church planter, either locally or overseas, they seem to have established a new form of power base where they oversee subordinate campus style congregations that submit to a more powerful central congregation.

There was a third category where Paul dispatched his personal representative to a congregation where they were his representatives and not “Apostles-of-Christ”, nor were they probably even to be classed as local congregational apostles.

The common populist understanding of an apostle is with “someone who is sent”, where I didn’t realise up until recently that the Greek Scriptures use three different words for this expression, where the first is with the well known apostolos, the second is pempo and the third being apostello.

The following graphic shows the entries for each of the three word within the book of Acts. You will be able to see how Luke has employed apostello for someone being sent, where apostolos (apostle) speaks of the person being sent with authority and finally pempo which speaks of someone or something being sent without authority. It might be clearer if you right-click to view image:

1. Apostolos:

This word is used 80 times in the Greek NT. The use of the Greek word apostolos within the New Testament is different to the classic or everyday Greek usage, where the New Testament combines the traditional Greek meaning of someone who is sent but where the person being sent out is doing so on someone else’s behalf but also with a degree of authority. This means that the various lexicons may appear to be giving different meanings, whereas the BGAD will provide an everyday meaning for the word but where it will also include a note regarding its use within the NT, the Friberg Lexicon will state the primary use of pempo with an application from the NT – here’s where lexicons can be a trap for the unwary!

Apostolos: (GK693 / SC650) (Friberg Lex.) one who is sent on a mission with full authority apostle, messenger, envoy

Friberg Lexicon:

3299 ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ(1) as one who is sent on a mission with full authority apostle, messenger, envoy (JN 13.16); (2) as a commissioned representative of a congregation delegate, missionary, representative (2C 8.23); (3) in the NT used especially of a messenger for God; (a) generally (LU 11.49); (b) more specifically as a person who tells the gospel message apostle (RO 16.7); often of a person who has the special task of founding and establishing churches apostle, messenger (of God) (EP 2.20); (c) especially of the Twelve chosen by Jesus apostle (LU 6.13)

BGAD Lexicon: [For the primary application of apostolos, the BGAD has an everyday common application of the word]:

1. of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger . . .
2. of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy . . .

Examples:

(Mar 3:14 ESV) And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach
(Luk 6:13 ESV) And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles:
(Gal 1:1 ESV) Paul, an apostle-- not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--

Summary: Both those who were commissioned by Christ to be his “Apostles-of-Christ” or those who are appointed to be congregational apostles, they both contain an inherent level of authority, where the Apostle-of-Christ has his commissioning issued by Christ himself (the Twelve and Paul), whereas the congregational apostle’s authority is only given through his local congregation or denominations appointment.

It’s important to remember that the Greek word apostollos has both a common everyday application in classic Greek, where its use changes within the New Testament, which can make reading the lexicons a bit confusing if you are not aware of this.

2. Pempo:

This word is used 78 times in the Greek NT where it refers to someone or something that has been sent or given but the word pempo does not contain nor does it imply that there is any inherent authority being involved with the sending. This is where many have mistakenly viewed an apostle as being someone who is sent.

Pempo: (GK4287 / SC3992) to send, to dispatch on any message, embassy, business

Friberg Lexicon:

21295 πέμπω fut. πέμψω; 1aor. ἔπεμψα; 1aor. pass. ἐπέμφθην; from a basic meaning send, of causing movement from one place to another; (1) of persons send, dispatch (MT 2.8); especially of those sent as God's representatives (LU 4.26); in a more abstract sense instruct, appoint (JN 1.33); in distinction from ἀποστέλλω (send forth, send out), where the primary focus is on the authoritative commission behind the sending, π. focuses rather on the sender who is being represented and on the act of sending (JN 5.37; cf. 3.17); (2) of things send something to someone (RV 11.10); idiomatically, of harvesting πέμπειν τὸ δρέπανον literally thrust in the sickle, i.e. begin to harvest; figuratively in RV 14.15, 18 of the time of judgment at the end of this age

The two following verses show how pempo is used to refer to someone who has been sent without their being any authority or commission being placed on them:

Examples:

(Act 11:29 ESV) So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers1 living in Judea.
(Phi 4:16 ESV) Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

The following four verses show how pempo is being used to describe how someone was being sent (in bold) but where someone has been shown to be the authoriser of their sending (blue).

(Joh 1:33 ESV) I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
(Joh 12:44 ESV) And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
(1Co 4:17 ESV) That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.
(1Co 16:3 ESV) And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem.
(Eph 6:22 ESV) I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts.

3. Apostello (not the same as the Apostolos in example 1)

Apostello: (GK690 / SC649) to send forth a messenger, agent, message, or command

With the first Greek word apostolos, it pointed to someone being designated as an a/Apostle who was being sent; this third word apostello does not point to anyone in particular as being the agent, but it speaks instead with the sending of an individual or persons. It does not contain any inherent authority unless the sentence contains information regarding who the sender was. If God sends apostello someone, then there is an implied authority within the sending as God is the one who has sent the person or persons.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): p.68 [only definition C.1,2,3 provided]

A. apostello and pempo in Secular Greek . . .
B. apostello and pempo in the LXX (OT) with Judaism B. . . .
C. apostello and pempo in the NT. (summary only)

1. apostello occurs some 135 times in the NT, mostly in the Gospels and Acts. pempo occurs some 80 times, 33 in John, five in Revelation, 22 in Luke/Acts, only four in Matthew, and one in Mark . . . . The religious character of the NT material explains the general predominance of apostello, and in the NT as a whole pempo seems to be used when the stress is on the sending, apostello when it is on the commission, and especially (in the Synoptists) when it is God who sends.

2. In John, Jesus uses apostello to denote his full authority, i.e., to ground his mission in God as the One who is responsible for his words and works. But he uses pempo, e.g., in the phrase “the Father sent me,” so as to state God's participation in his work by the act of sending. . . . . The mission of Jesus acquires its significance and force from the fact that he is the Son, not from its description in terms of apostello.

3. In the NT apostello certainly begins to be a theological word for “sending forth to serve God with God's own authority,” but only in context and not with any radical departure from its normal sense.

swordsman1 · Jan 17, 2016

For once I would agree with Biblicist. There is a distinction between an Apostle of Christ and and an apostle of the church. The Apostles of Christ were indeed just the disciples plus Paul. It was someone who was a witness of the risen Lord Jesus in the flesh (Acts 1:21-22) sent with a direct commission from Christ himself. Paul's commission being on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:14-18). Outside of those few men there were no other Apostles. Barnabas was called an apostle but he was an apostle of the church, sent by the church at Antioch, not personally by Christ. Paul was both an Apostle of Christ and an apostle of the church.

Apostleship is listed as a spiritual gift in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11, given prominence at the head of each list. 1 Cor 12:28 "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers....". As this is the foremost spiritual gift it can only be an Apostle of Christ. An apostle of the church, someone sent by a church on a mission (eg a missionary or church planter) is not listed as a spiritual gift and certainly not on a par with an Apostle.

An Apostle of Christ is a unique gift reserved for those 12 men. Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb". There is some debate about whether the twelfth position belongs to Matthias or Paul. (I personally believe it would be Paul as Matthias did not receive a direct calling from Christ as far as we know). Note that Apostleship was a foundational gift which, together with the gift of prophecy, formed the foundation on which the church was built. Eph 2:20 "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". When you construct a building you lay the foundation stones first and then lay the bricks on top of that. When the building is half way up you don't then add another layer of foundation stones. So the gifts of Apostleship and prophecy have ceased.

Apostles also had the supernatural ability to perform miracles. For example, they healed people who were crippled from birth (Acts 3:1-10), lined them up even to be healed by their shadow (Acts 5:14-15), raised people from the dead (Acts 9:36-43), and many other miracles. These amazing miracles were instantaneous and 100% successful (Acts 5:16) unlike the charismatic faith healers of today who can, slowly or on occasion, only 'heal' minor or psychosomatic complaints such as headaches, back problems and depression. The purpose of such miraculous healings in the NT was to authenticate them as messengers of the new gospel ministry (Heb 2:3-4, Acts 8:6, Acts 14:3, Acts 2:22). Once that was achieved, men with such supernatural powers were no longer necessary.

Even the most ardent pentecostal would have to concede that the spiritual gift of Apostleship, unique to the 11 disciples + Paul, has ceased. So they are in fact closet cessationists! If they can admit that at least one gift has ceased, why not also the revelatory gifts (prophecy, word of knowledge) necessary for the early church as they did not have the New Testament; and the sign gifts (miracles, healings, tongues) necessary to enable them to authenticate the new gospel ministry.

Biblicist · Jan 18, 2016

swordsman1 said:
For once I would agree with Biblicist. There is a distinction between an Apostle of Christ and and an apostle of the church. The Apostles of Christ were indeed just the disciples plus Paul. It was someone who was a witness of the risen Lord Jesus in the flesh (Acts 1:21-22) sent with a direct commission from Christ himself. Paul's commission being on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:14-18). Outside of those few men there were no other Apostles. Barnabas was called an apostle but he was an apostle of the church, sent by the church at Antioch, not personally by Christ. Paul was both an Apostle of Christ and an apostle of the church.

You had me wondering about this myself, where I thought . . . surely not . . . how could we ever be in agreement! But I did notice that as I read though your post that the status-quo quickly returned . . . and I had such high hopes.

Apostleship is listed as a spiritual gift in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11, given prominence at the head of each list. 1 Cor 12:28 "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers....". As this is the foremost spiritual gift it can only be an Apostle of Christ. An apostle of the church, someone sent by a church on a mission (eg a missionary or church planter) is not listed as a spiritual gift and certainly not on a par with an Apostle.

As Paul never used the term "spiritual gift" which is merely a translators plaything, when we use the term it can cause some complications particulary as the Offices of the apostle, teacher, helps and guidance are not the result of any spiritual enablements but more with a person's individual character and talents.

Your statement that as the congregational apostle is at the top of the list that this must mean that Paul is referring to those (the Twleve and himself) who are Apostles-of-Christ need not be commented on; you of course now have to explain where the congregational apostle fits into the equation!

An Apostle of Christ is a unique gift reserved for those 12 men. Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb".

I agree but you will still have to explain where Paul speaks of those who are congregational apostles if he is supposedly not doing so in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14.

There is some debate about whether the twelfth position belongs to Matthias or Paul. (I personally believe it would be Paul as Matthias did not receive a direct calling from Christ as far as we know).

As the 11 Apostles were adament that they had to replace Judas and where the Scriptures certainly do not make any objection to their action and that Matthias was chosen through lots then we can be assured that it was God (or Christ) who commissioned him. Matthias probably accompanied Jesus during most if not all of his three and a half years in ministry.

Note that Apostleship was a foundational gift which, together with the gift of prophecy, formed the foundation on which the church was built. Eph 2:20 "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". When you construct a building you lay the foundation stones first and then lay the bricks on top of that. When the building is half way up you don't then add another layer of foundation stones. So the gifts of Apostleship and prophecy have ceased.

It seems that you are confusing the two different parts of of Eph 2:20 we are told that Christ Jesus is our conerstone (and foundation); where our teaching is built on the foundation-teachings of the Apostles and prophets, where we really don't know if Paul was referring to the NT Apostles and the OT Prophets or to the NT Apostles who were themselves prophets. In any case, if it was the OT Prophets then they are certainly out of the picture and if Paul was referring to the Twelve and himself as being Apostles who were also prophets then as they have passed away then they are also out of the equation.

Apostles also had the supernatural ability to perform miracles. For example, they healed people who were crippled from birth (Acts 3:1-10), lined them up even to be healed by their shadow (Acts 5:14-15), raised people from the dead (Acts 9:36-43), and many other miracles. These amazing miracles were instantaneous and 100% successful (Acts 5:16) unlike the charismatic faith healers of today who can, slowly or on occasion, only 'heal' minor or psychosomatic complaints such as headaches, back problems and depression. The purpose of such miraculous healings in the NT was to authenticate them as messengers of the new gospel ministry (Heb 2:3-4, Acts 8:6, Acts 14:3, Acts 2:22). Once that was achieved, men with such supernatural powers were no longer necessary.

As the word 'miracle' is not a word found within the Greek Scriptures, then along with the term spiritual gift it can create a few problems. I will follow through with a seperate post on signs and wonders hopefully later today which is what you are actually actually referring to. For now, all I need to say is that the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-10) and the 8 Congregational Offices (12:28), that these should not be seen as being signs & wonders.

Even the most ardent pentecostal would have to concede that the spiritual gift of Apostleship, unique to the 11 disciples + Paul, has ceased. So they are in fact closet cessationists! If they can admit that at least one gift has ceased, why not also the revelatory gifts (prophecy, word of knowledge) necessary for the early church as they did not have the New Testament; and the sign gifts (miracles, healings, tongues) necessary to enable them to authenticate the new gospel ministry.

As I've already mentioned that an a/Apostle is not a Manifestation of the Spirit (aka. spiritual gift) then I can leave this one alone for now.

swordsman1 · Jan 19, 2016

Biblicist said:
As Paul never used the term "spiritual gift" which is merely a translators plaything, when we use the term it can cause some complications particulary as the Offices of the apostle, teacher, helps and guidance are not the result of any spiritual enablements but more with a person's individual character and talents.

Spiritual gifts is the correct terminology. Paul introduces 1 Cor 12 with "Now concerning pneumatikos...." (things that are spiritual). From then onward, the whole chapter is about the gifts from beginning ("Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit." v4) to end ("But earnestly desire the greater gifts." v31). Which is why all the major bible translations have rightly translated v1 as spiritual gifts (rather than things). And why virtually the whole of Christianity commonly refers to them as spiritual gifts.

Of course Apostles, teachers, helps and guidance (or administration) are gifts. They are listed right alongside the other gifts of prophets, miracles, healings and tongues in 1 Cor 12:28. Teaching is also specifically referred to as a gift in Romans 12:6-7. They might not be supernatural but they are still Spirit given enablements.

Your statement that as the congregational apostle is at the top of the list that this must mean that Paul is referring to those (the Twleve and himself) who are Apostles-of-Christ need not be commented on; you of course now have to explain where the congregational apostle fits into the equation!

Are you seriously suggesting that the first and foremost office in the church was not an apostle of Christ, but rather a congregational delegate?

I agree but you will still have to explain where Paul speaks of those who are congregational apostles if he is supposedly not doing so in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14.

Paul refers to apostolos in the general sense in Romans 16:7, 2 Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25, & 1 Thess. 2:6. And similarly Luke in Acts 14:14. It is someone who is sent by the local church on a mission (eg Paul & Barnabas were sent from Antioch in Acts 13:1-3), not a Spiritual empowerment as an Apostle of Christ was, having received the signs of an Apostle (2 Cor 12:12).

It seems that you are confusing the two different parts of of Eph 2:20 we are told that Christ Jesus is our conerstone (and foundation); where our teaching is built on the foundation-teachings of the Apostles and prophets, where we really don't know if Paul was referring to the NT Apostles and the OT Prophets or to the NT Apostles who were themselves prophets. In any case, if it was the OT Prophets then they are certainly out of the picture and if Paul was referring to the Twelve and himself as being Apostles who were also prophets then as they have passed away then they are also out of the equation.

That is Wayne Grudem's theory, where he attempts to argue that prophets were not the foundation of the church and so continue today. His argument is fatally flawed. It is the apostles and the prophets who were are the foundation of the church, not 'apostles who were also prophets' as he asserts. The wording of Eph 2:20 is clear: "having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". First off, he ignores one of the basic rules of hermeneutics that the most obvious interpretation is invariably the right one. Second it violates Sharp's rule of grammar, which states that for 2 nouns to describe the same person both nouns must be personal, and must be singular not plural. Thirdly Paul is always careful to distinguish between apostles and prophets, and always lists them separately, never together, just as he does a few verses later in Eph 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets..." and 1 Cor 12:28 "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third...". They are clearly two separate groups.

The church "was built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets", and as such both offices have now ceased.

As I've already mentioned that an a/Apostle is not a Manifestation of the Spirit (aka. spiritual gift) then I can leave this one alone for now.

Wrong. In both passages where apostle is listed it is in the context of spiritual gifts:

The whole of 1 Cor 12 from beginning to end is about spiritual gifts. Immediately after listing apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healings, tongues etc in v29, he says "But earnestly desire the greater gifts" [end of chapter]. Prophecy, teaching, miracles, healings, tongues are all specifically listed elsewhere as gifts.

And Ephesians 4:7-11: "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says“When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men..... And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, ..."

Hillsage · Jan 19, 2016

swordsman1 said:
Wrong. In both passages where apostle is listed it is in the context of spiritual gifts:

No, you are wrong. And you are so because, you don't know that the five-fold ministry gifts are "doma/gifts" and not "charisma/gifts" as is spelled out in your very own Eph 4 reference. And you then force your false pretex, of this Eph verse, into the context of 1Cor and arrive at your errant doctrinal view.

The whole of 1 Cor 12 from beginning to end is about spiritual gifts. Immediately after listing apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healings, tongues etc in v29, he says "But earnestly desire the greater gifts" [end of chapter]. Prophecy, teaching, miracles, healings, tongues are all specifically listed elsewhere as gifts.

Not being "gifted/learned" in "spiritual things" is again made evident by your above conclusions. When Paul asks you to desire the "greater charisma" he is, in fact, contrasting them with the 'lessor doma/gifts' of ministerial offices, of that contextual list.

And Ephesians 4:7-11: "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says“When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men..... And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, ..."

With even a 'little' study, you wouldn't even claim Eph 4:7 to substantiate your position.

EPH 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift/dorea of Christ.....11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Strong's # 1431 dorea: a gratuity

FYI the "gifts of The Holy Spirit" are not the "gifts of Christ". The 'spiritual charisma/gifts of the Holy Spirit' are to be "earnestly desired" above all the 'ministerial gifts of Christ' because ALL who are willing to receive the Holy Spirit are capable of moving in those supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, in order to minister to the body of Christ. If I need a 'healing chrisma/gift' from the Holy Spirit in my life, you being a 'doma/gifted' prophet of Christ isn't going to do me any good. This is evidenced again in another scripture.

1CO 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, OR spiritual,

the word "OR" is defined as
Strong Ref # 228 e: a prim particle of distinction between two connected terms disjunctive "or" comparative "than"

IOW "OR" is not referencing a prophet and spiritual as being INCLUSIVE, or the same spiritually, but as being DISJUNCTIVE, or two disjoined or separate 'terms'. And this definition conforms to the doctrinal view I've just presented above...and which you will hopefully not fight, in order to force all I've said, in defence your "unlearned/ungifted" un-charismatic POV.

You can 'earnestly desire', all you want, to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher (as positional offices in the body of Christ). But it will be to no avail, as they are a soulish talent and calling from the womb, and not a spiritual manifestation available to all who've first 'earnestly desired', and then received, the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

OK, I'm going back to watching your 'goad kicking' match with Biblicist. :wave:

swordsman1 · Jan 19, 2016

Hillsage said:
No, you are wrong. And you are so because, you don't know that the five-fold ministry gifts are "doma/gifts" and not "charisma/gifts" as is spelled out in your very own Eph 4 reference. And you then force your false pretex, of this Eph verse, into the context of 1Cor and arrive at your errant doctrinal view.

Not being "gifted/learned" in "spiritual things" is again made evident by your above conclusions. When Paul asks you to desire the "greater charisma" he is, in fact, contrasting them with the 'lessor doma/gifts' of ministerial offices, of that contextual list.

With even a 'little' study, you wouldn't even claim Eph 4:7 to substantiate your position.

EPH 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift/dorea of Christ.....11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Strong's # 1431 dorea: a gratuity

FYI the "gifts of The Holy Spirit" are not the "gifts of Christ". The 'spiritual charisma/gifts of the Holy Spirit' are to be "earnestly desired" above all the 'ministerial gifts of Christ' because ALL who are willing to receive the Holy Spirit are capable of moving in those supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, in order to minister to the body of Christ. If I need a 'healing chrisma/gift' from the Holy Spirit in my life, you being a 'doma/gifted' prophet of Christ isn't going to do me any good. This is evidenced again in another scripture.

1CO 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, OR spiritual,

the word "OR" is defined as
Strong Ref # 228 e: a prim particle of distinction between two connected terms disjunctive "or" comparative "than"

IOW "OR" is not referencing a prophet and spiritual as being INCLUSIVE, or the same spiritually, but as being DISJUNCTIVE, or two disjoined or separate 'terms'. And this definition conforms to the doctrinal view I've just presented above...and which you will hopefully not fight, in order to force all I've said, in defence your "unlearned/ungifted" un-charismatic POV.

You can 'earnestly desire', all you want, to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher (as positional offices in the body of Christ). But it will be to no avail, as they are a soulish talent and calling from the womb, and not a spiritual manifestation available to all who've first 'earnestly desired', and then received, the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

OK, I'm going back to watching your 'goad kicking' match with Biblicist.

'Doma' is just another general word for gift, as you can see from it's other uses in the NT:
Matt 7:11 & Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..."
Phil 4:16 "for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift"

When you look at their overlap in other lists you will see the gifts listed in Eph 4 are not just doma from Christ, they are also charisma from the Spirit:

Three of them (apostle, prophet, teacher) are also listed in 1 Cor 12 which are all from the Spirit, not from Christ. They are also only described as charisma, doma not being used at all in 1 Cor 12.
Two of them (apostle, prophet) are also listed in Romans 12:6-8 where they are described as charisma, not doma.

So it is clear doma and charisma are used interchangeably. Any attempt to separate them into doma from Christ as opposed to charisma from the Spirit is simply unworkable.

Biblicist · Jan 19, 2016

swordsman1 said:
Spiritual gifts is the correct terminology. Paul introduces 1 Cor 12 with "Now concerning pneumatikos...." (things that are spiritual). From then onward, the whole chapter is about the gifts from beginning ("Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit." v4) to end ("But earnestly desire the greater gifts." v31). Which is why all the major bible translations have rightly translated v1 as spiritual gifts (rather than things). And why virtually the whole of Christianity commonly refers to them as spiritual gifts.

You have me at a bit of a loss! On one hand you have disagreed with my position that the Greek word pneumatikos does not [Edit: in that this is its intended specific use] in any way refer to spiritual gifts, yet you then proceed to agree with me by stating "things that are spiritual"? My position is that pneumatikos is better defined as being "spiritual matters" which means that your own understanding is on par with mine.

If you want to say "things that are spiritual" then this is fine with me but you need to realise that your definition does not point to the Holy Spirit but to those things that are linked to the Godhead. So I will give you a 10 out of 10 for your definition! Now that I have pointed out your mistake you will undoubtedly do a back flip on this. . . which would be a shame.

Biblicist · Jan 19, 2016

For those who might be copying the lexical information contained within this thread, you might encounter a few problems when you paste back into MSWord (or with an equiv.) so you might want to copy the following Greek and Hebrew fonts onto your computer.

When I paste any lexical information from BibleWorks9 into MSWord, on most occassions I don't not encounter any problems but sometimes the Greek fonts might have trouble converting into an English font. What I then do is to copy from BW9 into MS Wordpad and from Wordpad onto Christianforums. If Unix has any helpful hints or even links to other Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fonts then any information would certainly be welcome.

Greek and Hebrew Fonts

· BibleWorks link
· SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) link
· Tyndale House link
· Teknia (Bill Mounce) link

Biblicist · Jan 19, 2016

Greek words that the various translations have translated as gifts

When we employ the word gift or the term spiritual gift we are essentially walking into a linguistic minefield as they contain a lot of unnecessary baggage. When the various translators have to labour with deciding how they can be consistent with the word gift/s and the term spiritual gifts, even with the best of intentions their attempts with consistency end up becoming a consistent with little more than their inconsistency.

“What’s in a Word” link

There are five questions that linguists (and learners) need to ask about any word. These are:
1. What does the word mean?
2. What words does it associate with?
3. What meanings does it associate with?
4. What grammatical functions does it associate with?
5. What positions in the text does the word favour?

The five points in the above list are certainly good points to follow, but we face an additional problem when we are looking into how a particular Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word has been used by a particular Bible translation committee, as they are all forced to employ various degrees of dynamic equivalence whenever they transfer a donor word from one language into a receptor word within another language, such as with Greek (donor) to English (receptor).

This can be easily demonstrated with how they are forced to deal with the following ten Greek words (New Testament) that they regularly translate into gifts or spiritual gifts:

(GK = Goodrich/Kohlenberger numbering system (NIV), SC = Strong’s numbering system)

πνευματικός pneumatikos(GK4461 / SC4152)
χάρισμα, ματαcharisma & charismata(GK5922 / SC5486)
χάρις charis (GK5921 /SC5485)
δόμαdoma(GK1517 / SC1390)
δωρεά dorea (GK1561 / SC1431)
δώρημα dorema (GK1564 / SC1434)
δῶρον doron (GK1565 / SC1435)
ἀνάθημα anathema (GK356 / SC334)
δόματαdomata (GK1517 / SC1390)
ἐλεημοσύνη

A good example of the problems that the many Bible translation committees encounter is found in Rom 5:15-17 where our English word gift has been adapted first from charisma, then dorea, charis, dorema then back to charisma, charis and finally dorea. [The words grace and gift are often translated from these Greek words]

(Rom 5:15-17 NASB) 15 But the free gift (charisma) is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift (dorea) by the grace (charis) of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16 The gift (dorema) is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift (charisma) arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace (charis) and of the gift (dorea) of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

For those of us who use an Interlinear Bible or software, then we can easily get around the problem, but for those who are restricted to relying on what they find in their Bibles then this means that they will often miss out on what a particular Bible author has attempted to convey. Even though many would hope to one day find a literal Bible translation, this is sadly something that will never occur as to even translate Rom 5:15-17 it would become so large and cumbersome that it would be very hard to read.

___________________________

A. Eph 4:8 δόμα doma (GK1517 / SC1390)

Of all the words that the translators transfer into our English word gift, the Greek word doma (GK1517) fits perfectly into Eph 4:8 as our English gift equates to the presents that Jesus left behind for us. This passage is not speaking of how Jesus has given or endowed anyone to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd or a teacher, but that when he ascended he left behind those who will fulfil these tasks. The role of the prophet is certainly the agency of the Holy Spirit but the roles of the apostle, evangelist, shepherd and teacher are often defined by the commentators as not being “gifts in themselves” but that the “gifts” or presents are those who fulfil these roles.

The following passage is a good example with how the doma of Eph 4:8 has been used to describe a present, where Paul thanks the Philippians for their financial donation. So as Jesus left behind certain people as presents to the church, Paul has also thanked the Philippians for their financial present or donation.

(Phi 4:15-17 NASB) You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; or even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift (doma GK1517) itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.

1. Friberg Lexicon:

7091 δόμα,ατος, τό
what has been given gift, present

2. UBS Lexicon:

1655 δόμα , τοςn gift

3. Louw-Nida Lexicon

57.73 δόσις, εως f ; δόμα, τος n: (derivatives of δίδωμι 'to give,' 57.71) that which is given - 'gift.' δόσις: πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν'every good gift and every perfect gift comes from above' Jas 1.17. δόμα:οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα'it isn't that I'm trying to get the gift' Php 4.17

4. BDAG Lexicon: [full description]

2076 δόμα
• δόμα, δόματος, τό (Ps.-Pla., Defin. 415b; Plut.; pap [Mayser 435]; LXX; EpArist 224; Philo, Cher. 84; Just., D. 39, 2 al. Cp. the entry δῶμα) gift δ. ἀγαθά good gifts (cp. Sir 18:17) Mt 7:11; Lk 11:13. διδόναι δόματά τινι Eph 4:8 (cp. Ps 67:19; Just., D. 39, 4); οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δ. not that I desire the gift Phil 4:17.—DELG s.v. δίδωμι A. M-M.

________________________

B. 1 Cor 12:9 χάρισμα charisma (GK5922 / SC5486)

The Greek word charisma is also frequently translated into English as gift but its literal meaning is with that of a free-grace which is how a number of commenters will refer to this particular word. Charisma is used in the Greek to refer to various forms of grace that a member of the Godhead desires to impart, where even Paul employed it in Rom 1:11 where he said that he also wanted to “share some free-grace” to the Romans. The translations tend to employ either impart or share where the word impart can accidently give the impression that he desires to impart a free-grace such as prophecy etc, which would be a mistake to presume.

1. Friberg Lexicon:

28536 χαρισθήσομαι VIFP--1S χαρίζομαι
28537 χάρισμα, ατος, τό a verbal noun from χαρίζομαι (give); denoting what has been given, gift; (1) as the result of a gracious act of God gift of grace, favor bestowed, benefit, with the meaning varying according to the context: privileges granted (RO 11.29), rescue from danger (2C 1.11), gift of redemption (RO 5.15-16); (2) as a concrete manifestation of grace in the form of extraordinary powers given to individuals, often in the plural gifts, special abilities

2. UBS Lexicon:

6504 χάρισμα , τος n gift (as an expression of divine grace)

3. Louw-Nida Lexicon:

57.103 χάρις, ιτος f ; χάρισμα, τος n: (derivatives of χαρίζομαι 'to give graciously and generously,' 57.102) that which is given freely and generously - 'gift, gracious gift.' χάρις: τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν ὑμῶν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ 'I will send these men to convey your gracious gift to Jerusalem' 1 Cor 16.3. χάρις may also occur in contexts in which the meaning of 'generous gift' may imply the purpose of gaining some favor or benefit. In Ac 24.27 (θέλων τε χάριτα καταθέσθαι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὁ Φῆλιξ 'Felix wanted to be offered a generous gift by the Jews') the implication is that of 'a bribe,' but probably spoken of euphemistically here as 'a gift.' χάρισμα: ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικόν 'in order that I might share with you some spiritual gift' Ro 1.11; τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν 'but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord' Ro 6.23.

4. BDAG Lexicon: [Headings only]

7896 χάρισμα
• χάρισμα, ατος, τό (χαρίζομαι) that which is freely and graciously given, favor bestowed, gift . . .
a. gener., the earthly goods bestowed by God . . .
b. of special gifts of a non-material sort, bestowed through God’s generosity on individual Christians . . .

There are of course another 8 words that are regularly translated into our English word gift but as this post is specifically about Eph 4:8 then this should suffice.
_____________________________________________________
Greek and Hebrew Fonts

· BibleWorks link
· SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) link
· Tyndale House link
· Teknia (Bill Mounce) link

swordsman1 · Jan 20, 2016

Biblicist said:
You have me at a bit of a loss! On one hand you have disagreed with my position that the Greek word pneumatikos does not [Edit: in that this is its intended specific use] in any way refer to spiritual gifts, yet you then proceed to agree with me by stating "things that are spiritual"? My position is that pneumatikos is better defined as being "spiritual matters" which means that your own understanding is on par with mine.

If you want to say "things that are spiritual" then this is fine with me but you need to realise that your definition does not point to the Holy Spirit but to those things that are linked to the Godhead. So I will give you a 10 out of 10 for your definition! Now that I have pointed out your mistake you will undoubtedly do a back flip on this. . . which would be a shame.

It is pretty obvious that the spiritual 'things' in 1 Cor 12 are the gifts of the Spirit referred to throughout the rest of the chapter.

Your revered BDAG agrees, as do all the vast majority of bible translations, which rightly refers to them as 'spiritual gifts':

πνευματικός, ή, όν
① pert. to spirit as inner life of a human being,spiritual ...
② In the great majority of cases in ref. to the divine πνεῦμα (s. πνεῦμα 5) having to do with the (divine) spirit, caused by or filled with the (divine) spirit, pert./corresponding to the (divine) spirit ...

α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts);

③ pert. to (evil) spirits ...

Biblicist · Jan 20, 2016

swordsman1 said:
It is pretty obvious that the spiritual 'things' in 1 Cor 12 are the gifts of the Spirit referred to throughout the rest of the chapter.

Your revered BDAG agrees, as do all the vast majority of bible translations, which rightly refers to them as 'spiritual gifts':

πνευματικός, ή, όν
① pert. to spirit as inner life of a human being,spiritual ...
② In the great majority of cases in ref. to the divine πνεῦμα (s. πνεῦμα 5) having to do with the (divine) spirit, caused by or filled with the (divine) spirit, pert./corresponding to the (divine) spirit ...

α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts);
③ pert. to (evil) spirits ...

I don’t think that I’ve mentioned as yet that any indepth study of how the various translation committees have employed our English gift or spiritual gift can amount to being a linguistic minefield, where for some particular passages the best option might be too accept that the task is too difficult to navigate where we might need to try and find way around what are probably insurmountable obstacles. I gather from your post that you no longer hold to pneumatikos in 1Cor 12:1 as being "(things that are spiritual)"?

This certainly applies to 1Cor 12:1 where I need to make a correction to your understanding that the BGAD agrees with “spiritual gift”. What the BGAD does say is that it is unsure as to what Paul intended, where τὰ πνευματικά could be either masculine or neuter. It is important to note that the BGAD has spiritual gifts in italics and it even places “those who possess spiritual gifts” in italics as well. If Paul is referring to “those who possess spiritual gifts” then this takes any emphasis away from any supposed “spiritual gifts” to those who are themselves spiritual.

BGAD: α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts); 14:1. In πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες 1 Cor 2:13 the dat. is either to be taken as a neut. (Lghtf., BWeiss, Bachmann, Ltzm., Rtzst. op. cit. 336, H-DWendland) or as a masc. (Schmiedel, Heinrici, JWeiss, Sickenberger); s. συγκρίνω and πνευματικῶς 2.—τὸ πνευματικόν (in contrast to τὸ ψυχικόν [s. 2aγ above]) 1 Cor 15:46.

What you will notice from the BGAD definitions and with the following commentaries is that the question revolves around Paul’s use being either masculine or neuter, where I like Thiseltons following qualification (in blue) as this allows for Paul using pneumatikos in a broad fashion which suits my choice of “spiritual matters” superbly.

1. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Anthony C. Thiselton (2000) p.909-10

“Now about things that “come from the Spirit”

The translation and meaning of των πνευματικών is universally discussed.

Since the genitive plural masculine and neuter share the same Greek ending, some understand the Greek to mean spiritual persons (modern writers from Heinrici and Weiss to Blomberg and Wire and earlier commentators from Grotius to Locke). Most interpreters, however, believe that the term denotes spiritual gifts (from Tertullian, Novatian, and Cyril of Jerusalem to Conzelmann, Senft, and Lang). This is adopted by AV/KJV, RSV, NRSV, JB, and NIV (cf. NJB, REB, gifts of the Spirit) . . . .
A relatively wide range of writers conclude that it is “impossible to find objective ground for a decision between the two possibilities, and little difference in sense is involved — spiritual persons are those who have spiritual gifts.”20 It refers to either. But if both the writer and the readers well knew that the Greek ending included both genders (i.e., excluded neither), why should the meaning be construed in either-or terms at all?

2. First Corinthians, David E. Garland (2010) p.561

“Now concerning the spiritual ones, brothers and sisters

3. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective, Veli-Matti Karkkainen (2002) pp.33-34

“One of the most distinctive expressions in Paul’s writings is the term pneumatikos. It is used as (1) an adjective meaning “spiritual”; (2) a masculine noun “spiritual man”; and (3) a neuter noun, “the spiritual things”. At least sometimes in Pauls writings the ambiguity of the term is evident, as in 1 Corinthians 12:1”.

4. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.574-576

What is not certain is (1) the meaning of the term that introduces the matter at hand (whether “spiritual gifts” or “spiritual people” ); . . . One wonders, however, whether in this instance the options have not been narrowed too rigidly. Most likely the word here is neuter, as in 9:11 and 14:1; but the evidence from 2:13-3:1, Gal. 6:1, Rom. 1:11, and elsewhere suggests that for Paul the primary focus of this adjective is on the Spirit. Paul’s immediate—and overall—concern has to do with what comes from “the Spirit of God” (v. 3) . . . It seems likely therefore that even though at points the two words are nearly interchangeable (as 12:31a and 14:1 would imply), the emphasis in each case reflects the root word (pneuma, Spirit; charts, grace). When the emphasis is on the manifestation, the “gift” as such, Paul speaks of charismata; when the emphasis is on the Spirit, he speaks of pneumatika If so, then both here and in 14:1 the better translation might be “the things of the Spirit,” which would refer primarily to spiritual manifestations, from the perspective of the Spirit's endowment; at the same time it would point toward those who are so endowed.

5. Conflict and Community in Corinth, Ben Witherington (1995) p.p.255

Pneumatika and charismata are important terms in this passage, and both are used of “spiritual gifts.” Pneumatika (12:1; 14:1) stresses the spiritual nature or source of a particular ability or gift, while charismata (12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31) stresses their nature as gift, that is, the unmerited character of these functions or activities. Pneumatika was apparently a favorite term for many of those Paul has been concerned about in Corinth, while charismata is Pauls own term, meant to bring these people back down to earth. He wants them to realize that the functions they have are unmerited gifts of God's grace. There is thus no room for egotism or boasting.

6. The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior (1985) p.233

“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren” [Prior provides no commentary on the Greek pneumatikon]

7. 1 Corinthians, Paul Barnett (2000) p.223

We face an immediate problem of knowing the meaning of his opening statement, ‘Now concerning spiritual gifts' (RSV; NIV). The difficulty is that Paul doesn’t use the word ‘gifts’ (charismata) here, though he does later in the chapter (verses 4, 9, 28, 30, 31). . . Which of these does Paul mean in the opening title of the section in chapter 12 verse 1. In short, are chapters 12-14 about ‘spiritual people’ or the ‘spiritual things’, that is, ‘tongues-speaking’?

8. 1 Corinthians, Leon Morris (1958/85) p.162

“Now about introduces another of the topics in the Corinthians’ letter (see on 7:1), though exactly what they had asked is not clear. Whether gifts should be added after spiritual (as NIV, AV, etc.) is not certain. Paul’s word (pneumatikon) might be masculine, ‘spiritual men’, or neuter, ‘spiritual things’; most take it in the latter sense and understand ‘things’ as ‘gifts’. . . The adjective pneumatikos (‘spiritual’) is unusually common in this letter (15 times, out of 24 times in Paul; no more than 3 times in any other letter). It is not the usual word for ‘spiritual gift’, which is charisma (w. 4, 9, etc.).

9. Spiritual Gifts: A Reappraisal, Barry Chant (1993) pp.4-6

Chant does not address the pneumatikon of 1Cor 12:1 but he does make reference to how the term ‘spiritual-gifts’ can be misapplied.

10. The First Letter to the Corinthians,Ciampa & Rosner (2010)

The TNIV translation gifts of the Spirit may be getting just a bit ahead of Paul's thought at this point. Literally he says, "Now I do not want you to be ignorant concerning spiritual things [or concerning matters of spirits]" or possibly "concerning spiritual people." BDAG and most translations (for rare exceptions, see CSB, NJB) support translating the key word as "spiritual gifts" or "those who possess spiritual gifts," but the word is much broader in its meaning. By the time we get to the next appearance of this word in 14:1 it may well be that Paul could expect his readers to know that the spiritual things he has in mind are spiritual gifts, but that is not yet clear in 12:1. In fact, in 12:1-3 Paul probably has in mind the difference between acting under the power of God's Spirit and acting under the influence of other spiritual powers (cf. Eph. 6:12). To be ignorant of spiritual things or spiritual matters would include being ignorant of the fact that someone who says "Jesus be cursed" is operating under the influence of another spirit whereas one who testifies that "Jesus is Lord" has come under the influence of the Spirit of God. Spiritual gifts will be the focus of most of chapters 12-14, but these introductory verses seem to deal with broader issues.

swordsman1 · Jan 20, 2016

But BDAG has listed 1 Cor 12:1 under the neuter form of the word, not the masculine which is the next section. So BDAG clearly favors the neuter. So if the best lexicon calls it 'things' what are the things Paul is referring to? As BDAG rightly says it is the gifts, which are referred to in the subsequent verses. As of course do all the major bible translations (NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc, etc).

α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts); 14:1. In πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες 1 Cor 2:13 the dat. is either to be taken as a neut. (Lghtf., BWeiss, Bachmann, Ltzm., Rtzst. op. cit. 336, H-DWendland) or as a masc. (Schmiedel, Heinrici, JWeiss, Sickenberger); s. συγκρίνω and πνευματικῶς 2.—τὸ πνευματικόν (in contrast to τὸ ψυχικόν [s. 2aγ above]) 1 Cor 15:46.
β. masc. (ὁ) πνευματικός possessing the Spirit, the one who possesses the Spirit (w. προφήτης) 1 Cor 14:37. (οἱ) πνευματικοί (οὐδεὶς ἢ οἱ πν. μόνοι Hippol., Ref. 5, 9, 6) (the) spirit-filled people 3:1 (opp. σάρκινοι and νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ); Gal 6:1; B 4:11; IEph 8:2 (of adherents to sound tradition in contrast to σαρκικοί, dissidents; s. 2bα above). Perh. also 1 Cor 2:13 and 12:1 (2bα).

Hillsage · Jan 20, 2016

swordsman1 said:
'Doma' is just another general word for gift, as you can see from it's other uses in the NT:
Matt 7:11 & Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..."
Phil 4:16 "for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift"

When you look at their overlap in other lists you will see the gifts listed in Eph 4 are not just doma from Christ, they are also charisma from the Spirit:

Three of them (apostle, prophet, teacher) are also listed in 1 Cor 12 which are all from the Spirit, not from Christ. They are also only described as charisma, doma not being used at all in 1 Cor 12.

Doma didn't need to be used in writing to those who understand. And I see nothing in the context indicating that the early in chapter 12 'charisma ministry gifts of the Spirit' are the 'doma ministry gifts of Christ' mentioned at the end of 12 where it is speaking of them comparatively.

Two of them (apostle, prophet) are also listed in Romans 12:6-8 where they are described as charisma, not doma.

So it is clear doma and charisma are used interchangeably. Any attempt to separate them into doma from Christ as opposed to charisma from the Spirit is simply unworkable.

If you are a "spiritual/gifted/learned"charismatic "you may all prophesy" as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit 'proportional to your faith'. This is something which is not based upon you having an office as a PROPHET in the church. IOW everyone who prophesies is not a PROPHET. Anymore than witnessing to someone makes you a ministering EVANGELIST like Billy Graham. Anymore than teaching your kid makes you a TEACHER to 'the church'. Those 'gift of Christ' positions are different.

Have another look at the Roman 12 confirmation of my opinion. He again lists the Spirit's charisma "prophesy" manifestation which requires "faith" as separate from the ministry/diakonia of a "teacheth/teaching", teacher.

ROM 12:6 Having then gifts/charisma differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 OR/OR/OR...ministry/diakonia, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

1248 diakonia {dee-ak-on-ee'-ah}
(2.b) of the office of the apostles and its administration
(2.c) of the office of prophets, evangelists, elders etc.

Biblicist · Jan 21, 2016

swordsman1 said:
But BDAG has listed 1 Cor 12:1 under the neuter form of the word, not the masculine which is the next section. So BDAG clearly favors the neuter. So if the best lexicon calls it 'things' what are the things Paul is referring to? As BDAG rightly says it is the gifts, which are referred to in the subsequent verses. As of course do all the major bible translations (NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc, etc).

α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts); 14:1. In πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες 1 Cor 2:13 the dat. is either to be taken as a neut. (Lghtf., BWeiss, Bachmann, Ltzm., Rtzst. op. cit. 336, H-DWendland) or as a masc. (Schmiedel, Heinrici, JWeiss, Sickenberger); s. συγκρίνω and πνευματικῶς 2.—τὸ πνευματικόν (in contrast to τὸ ψυχικόν [s. 2aγ above]) 1 Cor 15:46.
β. masc. (ὁ) πνευματικός possessing the Spirit, the one who possesses the Spirit (w. προφήτης) 1 Cor 14:37. (οἱ) πνευματικοί (οὐδεὶς ἢ οἱ πν. μόνοι Hippol., Ref. 5, 9, 6) (the) spirit-filled people 3:1 (opp. σάρκινοι and νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ); Gal 6:1; B 4:11; IEph 8:2 (of adherents to sound tradition in contrast to σαρκικοί, dissidents; s. 2bα above). Perh. also 1 Cor 2:13 and 12:1 (2bα).

Even though the BGAD is an amazing resource it is certainly one of those creatures that can take a bit of getting used to. What I did not initially realise was that the newer BGAD had changed its format from its predecessor the BAGD where its word definitions are now based on a new concept which is referred to as glosses + extended definitions. I have some links in my next post which should help to explain what this means.

If we deem the pneumatikos of 1Cor 12:1 to be neuter, where you hold to spiritual things and where I hold to spiritual matters, this means that we believe one and the same thing, but it is important to realise that neither of these two definitions (which are both one and the same) are saying that the material in chapters 12 are necessarily “spiritual gifts”. The BDAG has spiritual things or matters in italics which is the gloss, where it then has the gloss of spiritual gifts preceding 1Cor 12:1, but it then acknowledges that the neuter definition might not be correct where maybe the masculine meaning of “those who possess spiritual gifts” could also be correct - and this changes the meaning dramatically.

In the end it seems that a lexical solution to this question has not really been provided by the BDAG where Danker has instead relied on a theological approach, where he apparently deems the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (12:7-10) and the 8 Congregational Offices (12:28) as all being spiritual gifts and if this is his position then I would say that he is wrong.

BGAD (3rd edition)

α. neut. τὰ πνευματικά spiritual things or matters (in contrast to τὰ σαρκικά earthly things) Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; it is characteristic of adherents to sound tradition, as τὰ σαρκ. is of dissidents IEph 8:2 (s. β below).—τὰ πν. spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1 (the gen. here may also be masc. those who possess spiritual gifts); 14:1. In πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες 1 Cor 2:13 the dat. is either to be taken as a neut. (Lghtf., BWeiss, Bachmann, Ltzm., Rtzst. op. cit. 336, H-DWendland) or as a masc. (Schmiedel, Heinrici, JWeiss, Sickenberger); s. συγκρίνω and πνευματικῶς 2.—τὸ πνευματικόν (in contrast to τὸ ψυχικόν [s. 2aγ above]) 1 Cor 15:46.

Biblicist · Jan 21, 2016

Having recently added in a few Greek lexicons within my BibleWorks 9 package, I have come to realise that my knowledge of these lexicons was lacking to say the least. Through some reading over the past week I have come to realise that the lexicons are certainly not all the same and even the BGAD (BAG 3rd edition) is vastly different to its predecessor the BAGD (BAG 2nd edition).

The information below is focused primarily on the Louw-Nida Lexicon where the free online sources should help those who are interested with improving their study techniques without outlaying a lot of money for both books and software. The Louw-Nida Lexicon is probably second to the BDAG in importance and thankfully there is a reasonable amount of information on how to use the LN on the web along with a superb site which allows you to interact with the material.

For those who don’t as yet own an Interlinear or a Reverse Interlinear Bible, the following online site nltinterlinear.com/bible will be a great start as it provides both types of Interlinear Bibles online keyed to the NLT.

Once you've selected a chapter and verse, you will then notice the following options at the top of the page which provide the option to choose the NLT text or one of the Interlinears:

In addition, Logos software have provided each book of the New Testament as separate Interlinear edition of their LEB version which can be downloaded individually as PDF files (scroll down to the bottom of their page for download links).

A. Louw-Nida Lexicon

A very helpful compliment to the BGAD is the Louw-Nida Lexicon which is arranged differently to the BGAD along semantic lines.

Louw-Nida Lexicon (This connects to a very interesting site; BibleStudyTools.com & to logeion.uchicago.edu)

o If you click on a wordlink under the “DGE” lexicon title from within logeion.uchicago.edu, it will take you to http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge which incorporates both a Spanish and an English language lexicon, this is a work in progress.

The Louw-Nida has 93 categories where for example our English word language is found under section 33.1-33.8 , when the link is clicked it brings up another screen which shows other Greek words that have been used for language:

A. BDAG Lexicon

These links are for those who would like to understand the BDAG Lexicon which is the standard reference lexicon for scholars, translators and serious students of the Scriptures.

Some reasons why cessationism has become a dead worldview

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Similar threads