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

[FireDragon76]

NIV is just a bad translation. More of a theological transliteration, actually.

Robbery is actually a good translation, "grasped" is also acceptable.

I have heard one New Testament scholar say this passage isn't about Jesus divinity per se, in a Johanine theological sense, it's about Jesus rejecting Adam's path. Instead of eating the fruit and becoming like God, Jesus becomes a servant, only later to be exalted. It's an interesting perspective, though perhaps beyond my current proclivities to delve much into. It does fit with what some scholars say of Paul's theology, that he has an exaltation or adoptionist Christology (unlike John).

 

[tonychanyt]

Irrelevant! As I said A Verb Present [tense] Active INfinitive. trumps "a grammatically justifiable." Jesus existing equal to God was a then and there reality, there was nothing for Jesus to "grasp." I don't need BDAG to see that.

You are really having trouble understanding BDAG. Let me simplify it for you. Concerning the meaning of ἅρπαγμα, BDAG wrote:

ἅρπαγμα, someth [something]. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, This mng [meaning]. ... is grammatically justifiable.

According to BDAG, is translating ἅρπαγμα to "grasping" grammatically justifiable?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

NIV is just a bad translation. More of a theological transliteration, actually.

Robbery is actually a good translation, "grasped" is also acceptable.

I have heard one New Testament scholar say this passage isn't about Jesus divinity per se, in a Johanine theological sense, it's about Jesus rejecting Adam's path. Instead of eating the fruit and becoming like God, Jesus becomes a servant, only later to be exalted. It's an interesting perspective, though perhaps beyond my current proclivities to delve much into. It does fit with what some scholars say of Paul's theology, that he has an exaltation or adoptionist Christology (unlike John).

St. John Chrysostom's Homily 6 on Philippians states that this passage refutes a number of Christological heresies.

Behold Sabellius too. It is written, He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God. Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal has somewhat to which it is equal. Do you see not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Do you not hear the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten?​

​

Lastly, What shall we say against Arius, who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, He took the form of a servant? It means, He became man. Wherefore being in the form of God, He was God. For one form and another form is named; if the one be true, the other is also. The form of a servant means, Man by nature, wherefore the form of God means, God by nature. And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also does, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he says, He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.​

​

The entire homily can be found at

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 6 on Philippians (Chrysostom)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

or

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-13. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

 

[Der Alte]

You are really having trouble understanding BDAG. Let me simplify it for you. Concerning the meaning of ἅρπαγμα, BDAG wrote:
According to BDAG, is translating ἅρπαγμα to "grasping" grammatically justifiable?

It is not I who is misunderstanding. "Grammatically justifiable" BUT not absolutely required. And the word ειναι [einai] G1510 V-PAN prohibits "grasping" unless you want to phrase that as "holding fast to." But even the renowned BDAG is wrong on one point. Nothing I have seen includes the definite article τὸ.

Php 2:6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ,​

"to einai" should be translated "the being" equal [with] God.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; ​

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Php 2:6​

.

 

[tonychanyt]

It is not I who is misunderstanding. "Grammatically justifiable" BUT not absolutely required.
.

I am having trouble understanding you.

Concerning the meaning of ἅρπαγμα, BDAG wrote:

ἅρπαγμα, someth [something]. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, This mng [meaning]. ... is grammatically justifiable.

According to BDAG, is translating ἅρπαγμα to "grasping" grammatically justifiable?

Are you saying that the BDAG quotation is not required to answer the above question? Please stay focused if you can. We are experiencing a communication problem.

 

[Der Alte]

I am having trouble understanding you.
Concerning the meaning of ἅρπαγμα, BDAG wrote:
According to BDAG, is translating ἅρπαγμα to "grasping" grammatically justifiable?
Are you saying that the BDAG quotation is not required to answer the above question? Please stay focused if you can. We are experiencing a communication problem.

While BDAG has opined "that translating ἅρπαγμα [as] 'grasping' is grammatically justifiable," grammar does not require that it be so translated. I have given you my reasoning more than once, which OBTW has not been addressed. Once again, I remind you of the in-depth study of the one word "Arpagmos" which I linked to.

 

[tonychanyt]

While BDAG has opined "that translating ἅρπαγμα [as] 'grasping' is grammatically justifiable," grammar does not require that it be so translated. I have given you my reasoning more than once, which OBTW has not been addressed. Once again, I remind you of the in-depth study of the one word "Arpagmos" which I linked to.

Finally, I have understood something from you.

Do you think it is grammatically not justifiable to translate ἅρπαγμα as "a thing to be grasped" as ESV did?

 

[Der Alte]

Finally, I have understood something from you.
Do you think it is grammatically not justifiable to translate ἅρπαγμα as "a thing to be grasped" as ESV did?

Did you not understand my previous post? While BDAG has opined "that translating ἅρπαγμα [as] 'grasping' is grammatically justifiable," grammar does not require that it be so translated in all uses. There may be somewhere that the word ἅρπαγμα occurs where the translation "something to be grasped" would be correct Phip 2:6 is not that verse because of the phrase τὸ εἶναι[to einai] in the same sentence.

 

[tonychanyt]

Did you not understand my previous post? While BDAG has opined "that translating ἅρπαγμα [as] 'grasping' is grammatically justifiable," grammar does not require that it be so translated in all uses. There may be somewhere that the word ἅρπαγμα occurs where the translation "something to be grasped" would be correct Phip 2:6 is not that verse because of the phrase τὸ εἶναι[to einai] in the same sentence.

So, do you think it is grammatically not justifiable to translate ἅρπαγμα as "a thing to be grasped" as ESV did?

 

[Der Alte]

So, do you think it is grammatically not justifiable to translate ἅρπαγμα as "a thing to be grasped" as ESV did?

That is correct, this is now the third time I have said it.

 

[tonychanyt]

That is correct, this is now the third time I have said it.

If you don't mind for the 4th time

1. BDAG is wrong.
2. ESV is wrong.
3. Biblehub lists 21 versions using "grasped" are all wrong.
4. You are right.

True?

 

[tonychanyt]

NIV is just a bad translation. More of a theological transliteration, actually.

reference?

 

[Der Alte]

If you don't mind for the 4th time

BDAG is wrong.

1. ESV is wrong.
2. Biblehub lists 21 versions using "grasped" are all wrong.
3. You are right.

True?

As I said I have explained my reasoning three time, which you have not refuted. If you can't understand I can't help you. My first Greek professor who was on the NIV committee often spoke about how difficult it was for old schoolers to let go of their long-held assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[tonychanyt]

As I said I have explained my reasoning three time, which you have not refuted.

Sorry that I am slow. I still do not know your answer to the following:

1. BDAG is wrong.
2. ESV is wrong.
3. Biblehub lists 21 versions using "grasped" are all wrong.
4. You are right.

True?

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry that I am slow. I still do not know your answer to the following:

1. BDAG is wrong.
2. ESV is wrong.
3. Biblehub lists 21 versions using "grasped" are all wrong.
4. You are right.

True?

As Judges say in court, "Asked and answered, move on."

 

[tonychanyt]

As Judges say in court, "Asked and answered, move on."

OK. Can you enlighten us with a proof that you are right and they are all wrong?

 

[Der Alte]

OK. Can you enlighten us with a proof that you are right and they are all wrong?

Read my posts. I explained my reasoning more than once.
Part of my post #42, above. If the phrase "to einai" was not in Php 2:6 then the above objections could be correct. Grasping has the connotation taking of hold of something one does not have.

the word ειναι [einai] G1510 V-PAN prohibits "grasping" unless you want to phrase that as "holding fast to." But even the renowned BDAG is wrong on one point. Nothing I have seen includes the definite article τὸ.

Php 2:6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ,
"to einai" should be translated "'the being' equal [with] God."
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011),​

​

​

Jesus' being equal with God was something He always had there was nothing for Jesus to reach out and grasp unless one understands "grasp" as holding tightly to something one already has.​

 

[tonychanyt]

Read my posts. I explained my reasoning more than once.
Part of my post #42, above. If the phrase "to einai" was not in Php 2:6 then the above objections could be correct.

What objections are you talking about? Can you be precise?

 

[Der Alte]

What objections are you talking about? Can you be precise?

Anything quoted which counters what I said. Evidently you think I am wrong, I have addressed all your posts which have not been shown to be incorrect. Quotes from BDAG etc. don't do that.

 

[tonychanyt]

Anything quoted which counters what I said. Evidently you think I am wrong, I have addressed all your posts which have not been shown to be incorrect. Quotes from BDAG etc. don't do that.

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