He did not consider it ROBBERY to be equal with God,

[Der Alte]

Can you quote my words where I claimed that you were wrong?

You obviously consider my posts to be wrong you asked me more than once to show that BDAG, ESV, Bible Hub etc. are wrong since I clearly disagree with them.

 

[tonychanyt]

You obviously consider my posts to be wrong you asked me more than once to show that BDAG, ESV, Bible Hub etc. are wrong since I clearly disagree with them.

What is the difference between a question and a statement? Please quote my words where I claimed that you are wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

What is the difference between a question and a statement? Please quote my words where I claimed that you are wrong.

Do you understand the word "consider?" As in "You obviously consider my posts to be wrong,,,?"

 

[tonychanyt]

Do you understand the word "consider?" As in "You obviously consider my posts to be wrong,,,?"

Let's focus.

You claim that translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically not justifiable.

Please prove your claim.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Let's focus.

You claim that translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically not justifiable.

Please prove your claim.

How many times does Der Alte have to post the exact same paper to you for you to get that what you are working from is outdated? I'm Greek Orthodox and we updated our own translations to fit the meaning of the Greek:

From the GREEK ORTHODOX website:
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. - Philippians 2:6

Who would know what it means better than the people whose native tongue is Greek? The big thing is that in translation, there are words that simply don't translate well into another language as something is lost in the translation. The KJV translators picked the term "Word" for logos, but that loses the philosophical meaning of logos. Then people misapply the Word of God, that is the Second Person of the Trinity, for the word of God, that is the Scriptures. I've seen postings here from people who say that the Bible is part of God.

IMHO, there is nothing more theologically dangerous than someone who is armed with Google and some lexicon.
ὁ ἀγαπῶν παιδείαν ἀγαπᾷ αἴσθησιν, ὁ δὲ μισῶν ἐλέγχους ἄφρων.

 

[tonychanyt]

How many times does Der Alte have to post the exact same paper to you for you to get that what you are working from is outdated?

Let's focus on the logic.

Let proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable.

True?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Let's focus on the logic.

Let proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable.

True?

NO. And I'm done dealing with a fool who refuses to listen. You refuse to listen to anyone but yourself. Even though Der Alte and I are very much theologically different from each other, we still acknowledge that language and translations can be tweaked. Grasped was a poor choice of translation at least for today's English speaker and Der Alte has present enough information for you to accept that.

Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them. - Proverbs 27:22

 

[Der Alte]

Let's focus.
You claim that translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically not justifiable.
Please prove your claim.

I said no such thing. Go back and carefully read my posts. I won't ask again. Neither you nor BDAG or any of the versions has taken into consideration two very important words "τὸ εἶναι"/to einai" as if they were not even there, which correctly translated means "the being." c.f. my post #28 above.

 

[tonychanyt]

NO. And I'm done dealing with a fool who refuses to listen.

Proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable.

You have just claimed that P1 is false. Can you prove it? I am all ears

 

[Der Alte]

Proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable.
You have just claimed that P1 is false. Can you prove it? I am all ears

The premise is wrong. BDAG should read "In some circumstances translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable." Because the context of the word in Php 2:6 it is not grammatically correct to translate ἁρπαγμὸν as a thing to be grasped. To repeat in Php 2:6 in the phrase "τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ" einai is V-PAN, verb, present active infinitive literally "the being equal [with] God" was a then and there present reality not something Jesus would have to take or grasp for. Scholars can be wrong.

 

[tonychanyt]

The premise is wrong. BDAG should read "In some circumstances translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable."

Let proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable in Philippians 2:6.

True?

 

[Der Alte]

Let proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable in Philippians 2:6.
True?

Did you actually read the post you quoted? It appears not. Is that the only sentence in the BDAG entry for Arpagmon?

 

[tonychanyt]

Did you actually read the post you quoted? It appears not. Is that the only sentence in the BDAG entry for Arpagmon?

P1 does not mention BDAG. Please stay focused if you can.

Let proposition P1 = Translating ἁρπαγμὸν, as "a thing to be grasped" is grammatically justifiable in Philippians 2:6.
True?

 

[GDL]

A couple comments if I may:

• The articular infinitive is functioning as a direct object. Translating the article is thus not helpful.
• BDAG 2. As equal to ἅρπαγμα, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, someth. claimedw. change fr. abstr. to concr.
  • Is this not essentially explained with kenoō in the next verse?
    • Who, existing in [the] form of God regarded to be equal with God not something to claim/assert by gripping [it] (holding onto it) but He emptied Himself taking [the] form [of a] slave.

 

[Der Alte]

A couple comments if I may:

• The articular infinitive is functioning as a direct object. Translating the article is thus not helpful.
• BDAG 2. As equal to ἅρπαγμα, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, someth. claimedw. change fr. abstr. to concr.
  
  • Is this not essentially explained with kenoō in the next verse?
    
    • Who, existing in [the] form of God regarded to be equal with God not something to claim/assert by gripping [it] (holding onto it) but He emptied Himself taking [the] form [of a] slave.

BDAG appears to contradict themselves. First they say "The articular infinitive is functioning as a direct object. Translating the article is thus not helpful." Then they translate "τὸ εἶναι"/to einai," "to be" a future tense vice present tense. "To einai is a present active infinitive which should be translated as "the being." Another case of old scholars stubbornly not wanting to give up their long held beliefs. According to my first Greek professor that was a problem translating the NIV. Jesus existed as equal to God, that equality was not something for Jesus to consider and decline as BDAG makes it appear. Is this not also essentially explained with kenoō in the next verse?

 

[tonychanyt]

BDAG appears to contradict themselves. First they say "The articular infinitive is functioning as a direct object. Translating the article is thus not helpful." Then they translate "τὸ εἶναι"/to einai," "to be" a future tense vice present tense. "To einai is a present active infinitive which should be translated as "the being." Another case of old scholars stubbornly not wanting to give up their long held beliefs. According to my first Greek professor that was a problem translating the NIV. Jesus existed as equal to God, that equality was not something for Jesus to consider and decline as BDAG makes it appear. Is this not also essentially explained with kenoō in the next verse?

I don't think we are communicating. I thereby rest

 

[Der Alte]

I don't think we are communicating. I thereby rest

Oh, surely not! I'm just this old dude over here who doesn't know what he is talking about. You should be able to quickly put me in my place and show how my posts are in error.

 

[tonychanyt]

Oh, surely not! I'm just this old dude over here who doesn't know what he is talking about. You should be able to quickly put me in my place and show how my posts are in error.

You've said this. I didn't; nor did this ever enter my mind. On the contrary, I've asked you to quote my words where I assert the above and you never did. This is all in your head—not my head. Continuing thinking like this would only hurt yourself. Jesus loves you, brother.

 

[Der Alte]

You've said this. I didn't; nor did this ever enter my mind. On the contrary, I've asked you to quote my words where I assert the above and you never did. This is all in your head—not my head. Continuing thinking like this would only hurt yourself. Jesus loves you, brother.

I have been hearing such warnings for longer than you have been alive but I'm still going strong. Bon Chance.

 

[GDL]

BDAG appears to contradict themselves. First they say "The articular infinitive is functioning as a direct object. Translating the article is thus not helpful." Then they translate "τὸ εἶναι"/to einai," "to be" a future tense vice present tense. "To einai is a present active infinitive which should be translated as "the being." Another case of old scholars stubbornly not wanting to give up their long held beliefs. According to my first Greek professor that was a problem translating the NIV. Jesus existed as equal to God, that equality was not something for Jesus to consider and decline as BDAG makes it appear. Is this not also essentially explained with kenoō in the next verse?

GDL (another old guy BTW) made the comments re: the articular infinitive - not BDAG. Apology for any confusion.

• "einai" is the present active infinitive of eimi
• "to" is an accusative neuter singular article making to einai an articular infinitive.
  • per Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace, the Accusative Articular Infinitive can be a direct object or apposition.

I see no reason to translate the article. It is acting as a marker to tell us the infinitive is functioning as a direct object of the verb. If you as an old scholar must hold onto translating it, I (an old Bible student and schooled practitioner in Biblical Greek) can work with it fully realizing how old guys can be stubborn.

We know Jesus is God. But kenosis tells us He did not function as fully God while in the human body that was prepared for Him. We also know that God made Jesus the/His Christ (YHWH's Christ per Ps2 referenced in Acts13), Son of God, King, Heir, Judge, High Priest, when He resurrected Him. We've been discussing some of this here.

For me at this point I see this as the simplicity of what's being said in Phil2:6-7.

• [Jesus] [while or although] (my classifying the present participle) existing en form [of] God, regarded to be equal to/with God (articular infinitive phrase as direct object) not something to be claimed/asserted by gripping or grasping [holding onto it] (BDAG harpagmos), but emptied Himself, taking form of [a] slave becoming in likeness of men (verse 8 tells us more about this emptying, assumed outward appearance, obedience until death).

It doesn't seem that tough to me. The language and context are pretty clear. I have no issue with BDAG's elaborated definition. In fact, I think it's pretty good. It seems to say this is not just a new or off-the wall claim but an assertion or claim of fact that exists and is [not] being held onto, which goes very well with the initial present participle concerning His existing in form of God (this is why I elaborated a bit by classifying the present participle as temporal = while existing - or concessive = although existing). Point being He is God but emptied Himself of this status and subordinated to our Father. A maximized lesson in subordination for us BTW.

I did look at your posted article and seeing the length went to the end, so I did not get the full dose of it. I too try to keep up on articles, mostly from Journals, but it can be quite the task as I'm sure you know as an old guy who's done this for a while.