trinity question

[Bananna]

Look it is simple anyone who has a real greek quoted source can just put the link down so we can all get a look at it. "en" is not "heis" and if you can read greek just find the link and the source so we can all read it. The Blue letter bible translates words all the time that are not in the greek texts or they use a root word that is not the same word in greek. Translating say, "katalup" instead of "Kata" totally flipping the meaning of the passage.

 

[2ducklow]

Look it is simple anyone who has a real greek quoted source can just put the link down so we can all get a look at it. "en" is not "heis" and if you can read greek just find the link and the source so we can all read it. The Blue letter bible translates words all the time that are not in the greek texts or they use a root word that is not the same word in greek. Translating say, "katalup" instead of "Kata" totally flipping the meaning of the passage.

OK here it is. but when you go to the web site you have to punch the numbers in yourself in the search engine.,

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Corinthians 6:16 h <2228> {OR} ouk <3756> oidate <1492> (5758) {KNOW YE NOT} oti <3754> {THAT} o <3588> {HE THAT} kollwmenoV <2853> (5746) {IS JOINED} th <3588> {TO THE} pornh <4204> {HARLOT,} en <1520> {ONE} swma <4983> {BODY} estin <2076> (5748) {IS?} esontai <2071> (5704) gar <1063> {FOR SHALL BE,} fhsin <5346> (5748) {HE SAYS,} oi <3588> {THE} duo <1417> {TWO} eiV <1519> {FOR} sarka <4561> {FLESH} mian <3391> {ONE.}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm



Interesting. Literally it reads, ‘know ye not that he that is joined to the harlot in body is? (i.e. is in the body of a harlot) . they likewise translate the greek word en as one here also. ‘’FOR shall be the two , one flesh.” So since the two are called ‘one or heis’ flesh, translators translate en as one, even though it doesn’t mean one. Obviously because it makes more sense in our idiom that way.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Corinthians 6:17 o <3588> de <1161> {BUT HE THAT} kollwmenoV <2853> (5746) {IS JOINED} tw <3588> {TO THE} kuriw <2962> {LORD,} en <1520> {ONE} pneuma <4151> {SPIRIT} estin <2076> (5748) {IS.}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

So translating en in both verses correctly as ‘in’ and not ‘one’ puts a different slant on the verses. He that is joined to a harlot is in a harlot. He that is joined to the LORD is in the Lord Or spirit since the LORD is spirit. A harlot and her accomplice are one (heis) flesh. But the next verse does not use heis it does not say that he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. That obviously is the translators theology. Not scritpure. It is amazing to me that so many bibles are dishonest in saying that ‘one spirit’ is in the bible. Amazing.

 

[Bananna]

LOL
Duck I wasn't talking to you... you have lots of direct quotes and links. Thanks and I don't have to look up the numbers, I just read the greek word and type it into my own translator to check the congegation and part of speach and common definition.

Then I check the concept against the common Jewish teachings and Midrash/targums etc.

Taking it all the way back to the hebrew/Jewish roots is very educational.

I learn a lot from all you.
bananna

 

[Bananna]

ooh very cool link Duck, a little less detailed but very fast and easy.

bananna

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]OK here it is. but when you go to the web site you have to punch the numbers in yourself in the search engine.,

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Interesting. Literally it reads, ‘know ye not that he that is joined to the harlot in body is? (i.e. is in the body of a harlot) . they likewise translate the greek word en as one here also. ‘’FOR shall be the two , one flesh.” So since the two are called ‘one or heis’ flesh, translators translate en as one, even though it doesn’t mean one. Obviously because it makes more sense in our idiom that way.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

So translating en in both verses correctly as ‘in’ and not ‘one’ puts a different slant on the verses. He that is joined to a harlot is in a harlot. He that is joined to the LORD is in the Lord Or spirit since the LORD is spirit. A harlot and her accomplice are one (heis) flesh. But the next verse does not use heis it does not say that he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. That obviously is the translators theology. Not scritpure. It is amazing to me that so many bibles are dishonest in saying that ‘one spirit’ is in the bible. Amazing.[/SIZE]

What is amazing is, no matter how many times it is proven you do not know the first thing about Biblical Greek you still keep backing up your RV and discharging the holding tank. The words "en"-one and "en"-in, in Greek, may appear the same to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, but to real Greek scholars there is a significant difference. And you don't have a clue.

G1520 [SIZE=+1]&#949;&#953;&#962;[/SIZE] heis hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] &#769;&#949;&#957; hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

1Co 6:17 [SIZE=+1]&#959;[/SIZE]3588 T-NSM [SIZE=+1]&#948;&#949; 1161 CONJ &#954;&#959;&#955;&#955;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; 2853 V-PPP-NSM &#964;&#969; 3588 T-DSM &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#969; 2962 N-DSM &#949;&#957; 1520 A-NSN &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; 4151 N-NSN &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957;[/SIZE] 2076 V-PXI-3S

 

[2ducklow]

What is amazing is, no matter how many times it is proven you do not know the first thing about Biblical Greek

You must mean like this last previous discourse with you when I soundly trounced your misunderstanding of middle deponent verbs.

you still keep backing up your RV and discharging the holding tank.

Cute, made me laugh, you have an inventive mind. but a seeming fixation upon rather disgusting imagery. (your last post to me accused me of having my head in a hole.) This is a new one I haven't seen this one before.

The words "en"-one and "en"-in, in Greek, may appear the same to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about,

You mean
LIke when you didn't know what you were talking about when you defined 'deponent verb" as "the subject performs the action." ?

but to real Greek scholars there is a significant difference.

well neither one of us is a real greek scholar.

And you don't have a clue.

I don't think you do either judging from this response. you haven't said why it is translated one in 1 cor. 6.17. Just quoted strongs. You don't know either. Maybe I can figure it out for us.

G1520 [SIZE=+1]&#949;&#953;&#962;[/SIZE] heis hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] &#769;&#949;&#957; hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762

1Co 6:17 [SIZE=+1]&#959;[/SIZE]3588 T-NSM [SIZE=+1]&#948;&#949; 1161 CONJ &#954;&#959;&#955;&#955;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; 2853 V-PPP-NSM &#964;&#969; 3588 T-DSM &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#969; 2962 N-DSM &#949;&#957; 1520 A-NSN &#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#956;&#945; 4151 N-NSN &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957;[/SIZE] 2076 V-PXI-3S

Ok what does A-NSN mean? adjective neuter singular something I guess. you highlight it in red but dont explain it's significance or what the letters stand for. did you just highlight it at random for no reason?
So? why is en translated one in 1 co.6.17.? what does 'neuter [etc] &#949;&#957; hen' mean? you haven't explained why en is translated as one in 1 cor. 6.17. why is en translated one in this verse? the only reason I can see is because 'the two shall be one (&#949;&#953;&#962 flesh.' in verse 16. So for that reason they assume that en must mean one spirit. Which would be then that they translate en as one for interprretive reasons.To me it makes more sense to say that 'he that is joined to the LORD is in (&#949;&#957spirit, than to say 'He that is joined to the LORD is one (&#949;&#957 spirit. The primary meaning of en is 'in'.
I also do not understand why when i click en in my greek bible cd for 1 cor. 6.17 that the definition for hies comes up when the word is en?????? strange to me.

[SIZE=+1]ejn [/SIZE]En (en);
Word Origin: Greek, Preposition, Strong #: 1722

1. in, by, with etc.

KJV Word Usage and Countin 1874 by 141 with 134 among 117 at 112 on 46 through 37 miscellaneous 321

en is overwhelmingly translated as in.

I also looked in several commentaries, JFB. for example, an none of them say anything about it. I couldn't find any reason for translating it as one, except that in verse 16 'two (heis) shall be one flesh" refering to the harlot and her accomplice.
So please explain why in this instance that en should be translated as one.

//////////time passes, doing some investigation//////////voila

.
(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Ephesians 4:4 en <1520> {ONE} swma <4983> {BODY} kai <2532> {AND} en <1520> {ONE} pneuma <4151> {SPIRIT,} kaqwV <2531> {EVEN AS} kai <2532> {ALSO} eklhqhte <2564> (5681) {YE WERE CALLED} en <1722> {IN} mia <3391> {ONE} elpidi <1680> {HOPE} thV <3588> klhsewV <2821> umwn <5216> {OF YOUR CALLING;}


Ok so makes more sense translating en as in not one in this verse too

&#8220;In body and in spirit even as ye were called in hope of your calling.&#8221;

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Corinthians 12:13

kai <2532> gar <1063> {FOR ALSO} en <1722> {BY} eni <1520> {ONE} pneumati <4151> {SPIRIT} hmeiV <2249> {WE} panteV <3956> {ALL} eiV <1519> {INTO} en <1520> {ONE} swma <4983> {BODY} ebaptisqhmen <907> (5681) {WERE BAPTIZED,} eite <1535> {WHETHER} ioudaioi <2453> {JEWS} eite <1535> {OR} ellhneV <1672> {GREEKS,} eite <1535> {WHETHER} douloi <1401> {BONDMEN} eite <1535> {OR} eleuqeroi <1658> {FREE} kai <2532> {AND} panteV <3956> {ALL} eiV <1519> {INTO} en <1520> {ONE} pneuma <4151> {SPIRIT} epotisqhmen <4222> (5681) {WERE MADE TO DRINK.}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Ok this translating en as one is really starting to look bogus big time now. This verse makes more sense translating en as in.

&#8220;For also in spirit we all were in body baptized whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen of free and all into en in ( ok here it looks like the meaning of en might possibly be one but why is a mystery) spirit were made to drink.&#8221;

 

[yeshuasavedme]

[/font]
I see you can't admidt that heis is not in the textus receptus or any greek bible. even though i quoted the verse in greek from the textus receptus showing irrefuteably that heis is not in the textus receptus. if you can't admidt to the facts how can anyone possibly debate with you?

You are lying about the Textus Receptus used in the Strong's at blb-perhaps without actually looking at the site to see why the word heis is there, in the Greek, and is translated in the many translations that I posted as, 'one'-. If you would go there you would see that they are using the Textus Receptus and that Jerome also translated the word 'heis' as 'one' in the 400's, but you seem to have set your mind to the impossiblility that you are following a false agenda.

 

[2ducklow]

Yeshuasaved me;
why don't you quote the verse instead of alleging that I am lying? quote the verse with heis in it. I quoted the verse from the textus receptus from this web adress

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

it has the greek word in the textus receptus as being 'en' not 'heis'. so quote it with the link. you just gave the link last time and I saw no textus receptus there. at my web site you have to punch in the scripture then scroll down to the greek interlinear and it will take you to the textus receptus. I rather doubt that they are lieing about the textus receptus saying en instead of heis. so give me the quote with heis in it instead of your contiinual evasive answers. course i know you will evade quoting it cause it isn't there and you have no other options but to evade.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]You must mean like this last previous discourse with you when I soundly trounced your misunderstanding of middle deponent verbs.

You mean
LIke when you didn't know what you were talking about when you defined 'deponent verb" as "the subject performs the action." ?[/SIZE]

You have trounced nothing, I have posted. You deliberately misquoted a source trying to prove your argument. When it was proven wrong, you simply ignored it and tried to find another quote. OBTW your copy/pastes do not agree.

You have clearly shown you do not know nor understand anything about Greek verbs. You keep saying that egeneto, Jn 1:14, is active but translating it as passive.

Active means the subject, ie. Logos, performs the action. That supports my definition. I will post my source later. It is Strong's.

Middle means the subject performs the action upon himself.

Passive means the verb acts on the subject. However you have repeatedly said that egeneto is middle in form but active in meaning. One thing that is absolutely clear is egeneto is not passive. Therefore it cannot be legitmately translated "was made," in John 1:14.

That leaves active or middle. Either way the subject, Logos, performs the action.

Please show me where you have disproved anything I posted or trounced anything?

[SIZE=-1]well neither one of us is a real greek scholar.
I don't think you do either judging from this response. you haven't said why it is translated one in 1 cor. 6.17. Just quoted strongs. You don't know either. Maybe I can figure it out for us.[/SIZE]

I may not be a "real" Geek scholar, but I have studied Greek formally, and I have many of the standard resources, TDNT, BAGD, Louw-Nida, and of course, Robertson, Strong's, Vincent, Thayer, etc. And I know how to use them. You don't, see your next reply below.

[SIZE=-1]Ok what does A-NSN mean? adjective neuter singular something I guess. you highlight it in red but dont explain it's significance or what the letters stand for. did you just highlight it at random for no reason?[/SIZE]

You are supposed to be impressing us with your superior knowledge and understanding of Biblical Greek. Holy Moley, you have copy/pasted 2-3 contradictory websites and now you is a expert.

Any 1st year Greek student knows what those letters mean, actually any student of any language knows the meaning. They are standard grammatical abbreviations.

"(Including the neuter [etc.] &#769;&#949;&#957; hen);" &#949;&#957; hen, is the neuter gender of eis. There is no letter "h" in Greek. Heis is the standard transliteration for what is known in Greek as "hard breathing."

Since "penuma" is neuter, it takes neuter adjectives. Thus &#949;&#957; hen, the neuter of eis.

"A-NSN" Since you is sposed to be the Greek expert here, showing all of us up, why is it you don't know what this means and you don't even know how to go about finding out?

Google Greek parsing guide.

Adjective-Nominative, Singular, Neuter. Nominative means it pertains to the subject.

[SIZE=-1]So? why is en translated one in 1 co.6.17.? what does 'neuter [etc] &#949;&#957; hen' mean? you haven't explained why en is translated as one in 1 cor. 6.17. why is en translated one in this verse? the only reason I can see is because 'the two shall be one (&#949;&#953;&#962 flesh.' in verse 16. So for that reason they assume that en must mean one spirit. Which would be then that they translate en as one for interprretive reasons.To me it makes more sense to say that 'he that is joined to the LORD is in (&#949;&#957spirit, than to say 'He that is joined to the LORD is one (&#949;&#957 spirit. The primary meaning of en is 'in'.

I also do not understand why when i click en in my greek bible cd for 1 cor. 6.17 that the definition for hies comes up when the word is en?????? strange to me.

en is overwhelmingly translated as in.
[/SIZE]

Of course you don't understand. Primarily because you do not want to understand. As I have said repeatedly, when one of your piece meal, out-of-context, copy/paste is proven wrong, you simply ignore it, and try to find another argument, from somewhere, you hope will prove something.

The definition of "eis/mia/en" from the LSJ classical Greek lexicon. The different forms are, masculine, feminine, neuter. And this lexicon, being secular, has no theological position to prove one way or the other.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+1]&#949;&#953;&#962; (&#949;&#953;&#962; &#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#957;&#953; &#949;&#957;(&#945; &#956;&#953;&#945; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#953; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#957;[/size]) heis (heis, henos, heni, hen(a); mia, mias, miai, mian; hen, henos, hen.)

a. one opposed to other numbers. hepta -- paidas, hôn heis men Kamiron -- eteken O. 7.73 treis, hoi duo men -- heis d O. 8.40 agonti de me pente men Isthmoi nikai, mia d' ekprepês Dios Olumpias P. 7.14 egamen hupsithronôn mian Nêreidôn N. 4.65 labôn d' hen[a] phiôi[t]ai (supp. Lobel) fr. 169. 20. hen par' eslon pêmata sunduo daiontai brotois athanatoi P. 3.81

b. single pur ex henos spermatos enthoron aistôsen hulan P. 3.36 cf. N. 6.1 infra. ergois de kalois esoptron isamen heni sun tropôi, ei N. 7.14 tuchein d' hen adunaton eudaimonian hapasan anelomenon N. 7.55 all' hamerai gar en miai I. 4.16

c. one and the same en de miai moirai chronou allot' alloiai diaithussoisin aurai O. 7.94 kratêsan mian ergon an' hameran O. 9.85 mia douch hapantas amme threpsei meleta O. 9.106 haliôi amph' heni O. 13.37 “mia bous Krêthei te matêr kai thrasumêdei Salmônei” P. 4.142 patros d' amphoterais ex henos aristomachou genos Hêrakleos basileuei P. 10.2 hen andrôn hen theôn genos: ek mias de pneomen matros (v. Kornitz, Hermes, 1961, 370: Soph., fr. 591.) N. 6.1 ]miai d' epi thêkai[ fr. 169. 49

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

[SIZE=-1]It seems to me that Der Alter, just likes to attack our education and flaunt his up, but I must say, I'm not impressed.[/SIZE]

As I am unimpressed by the rank dishonesty, and hypocrisy, of the piece of this, piece of that, out-of-context copy/paste arguments being posted. And when one argument is blown away, our friend pretends like nothing happened back to the 'net to find another argument that might work.

 

[2ducklow]

You have trounced nothing, I have posted. You deliberately misquoted a source trying to prove your argument. When it was proven wrong, you simply ignored it and tried to find another quote. OBTW your copy/pastes do not agree.

You have clearly shown you do not know nor understand anything about Greek verbs. You keep saying that egeneto, Jn 1:14, is active but translating it as passive.

Active means the subject, ie. Logos, performs the action. That supports my definition. I will post my source later. It is Strong's.

Middle means the subject performs the action upon himself.

Passive means the verb acts on the subject. However you have repeatedly said that egeneto is middle in form but active in meaning. One thing that is absolutely clear is egeneto is not passive. Therefore it cannot be legitmately translated "was made," in John 1:14.

Can too, at least according to Keathley. Because Word is an inanimate object it cannot therefore cease of it's own accord, therefore the middle is equivalent to a pasive, hence the passive in the KJV for egeneto. "was made".

[quote]
The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive.(2dl insert; this explains why the kjv translates egeneto as the passive 'was made.')

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1603



That leaves active or middle. Either way the subject, Logos, performs the action.

Please show me where you have disproved anything I posted or trounced anything?[/quote] Well for one thing middle deponent verb does not mean that the verb performs the action. what the term means is a verb that is in the middle voice form but has an active meaning. The key point that you have not addressed is whether egeneto is reflexive or not. For example,even in english, when we say 'it became' , became is either reflexive or not. It became real as a result of another doing it. (Non reflexive) or "It became real as a result of what it did.(reflexive ) Keathley is arguing that egeneto is reflexive, as your statement "the word acts upon itself." but Keathyly says that is the minority opinion amongst scholars and he also states that to make egeneto reflexive one has to make wind in luke 8.24 a personification. And as I have discovered in a fair number of other scirptures such as john 1.3,and mark 9.23, and I think a few others that I have found ,,, all would have to be personifications of ,"wind' "all things', 'garments' etc. So since one has to make the noun a personification in order to see egeneto as reflexive, that in my mind precludes egeneto from being reflexive. Which is the majority opinion amongst NT scholars,according to Keathly.

I may not be a "real" Geek scholar, but I have studied Greek formally, and I have many of the standard resources, TDNT, BAGD, Louw-Nida, and of course, Robertson, Strong's, Vincent, Thayer, etc. And I know how to use them. You don't, see your next reply below.

I'm sure you don't know everything about Greek.

You are supposed to be impressing us with your superior knowledge and understanding of Biblical Greek. Holy Moley, you have copy/pasted 2-3 contradictory websites and now you is a expert.

WEll now here is an interesting thing. one person criticizes me for only posting things that agree with what I say. another criticizes me for posting differing opinions on the subject of 'middle deponent verbs.' If you examine the subject very deeply you will find that the subject of middle deponent verbs is controversial and very difficult to understand, that is beyond the basics. I only have a handle on it at best.

Any 1st year Greek student knows what those letters mean, actually any student of any language knows the meaning. They are standard grammatical abbreviations.

Well, I've never taken a greek class.

"(Including the neuter [etc.] &#769;&#949;&#957; hen);" &#949;&#957; hen, is the neuter gender of eis. There is no letter "h" in Greek. Heis is the standard transliteration for what is known in Greek as "hard breathing."

Yea I knew that part.

Since "penuma" is neuter, it takes neuter adjectives. Thus &#949;&#957; hen, the neuter of eis.

Ah ha, well that explains it then. if you had said that at the outset it would have been most helpful.

"A-NSN" Since you is sposed(cute 2dl) to be the Greek expert here, showing all of us up, why is it you don't know what this means and you don't even know how to go about finding out?

Google Greek parsing guide.

Adjective-Nominative, Singular, Neuter. Nominative means it pertains to the subject.



Of course you don't understand. Primarily because you do not want to understand. As I have said repeatedly, when one of your piece meal, out-of-context, copy/paste is proven wrong, you simply ignore it, and try to find another argument, from somewhere, you hope will prove something.[/quote] You're wrong.

The definition of "eis/mia/en" from the LSJ classical Greek lexicon. The different forms are, masculine, feminine, neuter. And this lexicon, being secular, has no theological position to prove one way or the other.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon

[SIZE=+1]&#949;&#953;&#962; (&#949;&#953;&#962; &#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#957;&#953; &#949;&#957;(&#945; &#956;&#953;&#945; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#953; &#956;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#957;[/SIZE]) heis (heis, henos, heni, hen(a); mia, mias, miai, mian; hen, henos, hen.)

a. one opposed to other numbers. hepta -- paidas, hôn heis men Kamiron -- eteken O. 7.73 treis, hoi duo men -- heis d O. 8.40 agonti de me pente men Isthmoi nikai, mia d' ekprepês Dios Olumpias P. 7.14 egamen hupsithronôn mian Nêreidôn N. 4.65 labôn d' hen[a] phiôi[t]ai (supp. Lobel) fr. 169. 20. hen par' eslon pêmata sunduo daiontai brotois athanatoi P. 3.81

b. single pur ex henos spermatos enthoron aistôsen hulan P. 3.36 cf. N. 6.1 infra. ergois de kalois esoptron isamen heni sun tropôi, ei N. 7.14 tuchein d' hen adunaton eudaimonian hapasan anelomenon N. 7.55 all' hamerai gar en miai I. 4.16

c. one and the same en de miai moirai chronou allot' alloiai diaithussoisin aurai O. 7.94 kratêsan mian ergon an' hameran O. 9.85 mia douch hapantas amme threpsei meleta O. 9.106 haliôi amph' heni O. 13.37 &#8220;mia bous Krêthei te matêr kai thrasumêdei Salmônei&#8221; P. 4.142 patros d' amphoterais ex henos aristomachou genos Hêrakleos basileuei P. 10.2 hen andrôn hen theôn genos: ek mias de pneomen matros (v. Kornitz, Hermes, 1961, 370: Soph., fr. 591.) N. 6.1 ]miai d' epi thêkai[ fr. 169. 49

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform


​

As I am unimpressed by the rank dishonesty, and hypocrisy, of the piece of this, piece of that, out-of-context copy/paste arguments being posted. And when one argument is blown away, our friend pretends like nothing happened back to the 'net to find another argument that might work.

all of which says nothing. saying i am dishonest a hypocrit and post out of context all without any proof. no examples just false accusations with no examples to back it up. "J'accuse' is a good book for you to read. You see the decent thing to do is when you accuse someone of being dishonest to put forth something that you believe he said dishonestly so that person can reply to it. if you accuse someone of being a hypocrite at least show where he was being hypocritical.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Can too, at least according to Keathley. Because Word is an inanimate object it cannot therefore cease of it's own accord, therefore the middle is equivalent to a pasive, hence the passive in the KJV for egeneto. "was made".[/SIZE]

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive.(2dl insert; this explains why the kjv translates egeneto as the passive 'was made.')
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1603

Once again misquoting your source, trying to make it say the opposite of what it actually says. I have highlighted what you quoted in red what you deliberately omitted in blue. In fact, Keathley did not say anything that you claim he did, above.

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage; If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:23 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pauvsontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives. The real force of pauvw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.​

[SIZE=-1]all of which says nothing. saying i am dishonest a hypocrit and post out of context all without any proof. no examples just false accusations with no examples to back it up. "J'accuse' is a good book for you to read. You see the decent thing to do is when you accuse someone of being dishonest to put forth something that you believe he said dishonestly so that person can reply to it. if you accuse someone of being a hypocrite at least show where he was being hypocritical.[/SIZE]

I tell you every single time I find you misquoting, quoting out-of-context, deliberately misrepresenting sources, scripture, etc. And I usually include a colorful expression, such as having your head stuck in a dark hole, or backing up your RV and discharging the holding tank, as you have done in this post.

You cannot prove diddly squat by misquoting your own source. When a source presents an an opposing argument, to refute the argument, the opposing argument does NOT prove anything. You have done this twice in this same article.

And your out-of-context arguments are incredibly easy to refute. All I have to do is show the context of the rest of the paragraph.

 

[2ducklow]

Once again misquoting your source, trying to make it say the opposite of what it actually says. I have highlighted what you quoted in red what you deliberately omitted in blue. In fact, Keathley did not say anything that you claim he did, above.

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage; If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:23 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pauvsontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives. The real force of pauvw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.​

​

Keathley did say what I quoted him as saying. as I understand what he is saying it is this. that the verb pauvw in 1 cor. 13,8 is considered by the majority of NT scholars to be a deponent verb because it is deponenet in the future tense. But Keathly considers it middle voice. The majority of scholars argue that tongues cannot cease of thier own accord, therefore it cannot be middle voice, so it has to be deponent like the future tense is.. Keathly disagrees and says that tongues is being personified, therefore, pauvw can be logically considered middle voice. . It does not appear to me from what Keathley says that he is disputing that a middle voice verb is translated in the passive if the subject is an inantimate object and it is a physical impossiblity for an inantimate object to perform the action, as in tongues ceasing of thier own accord., because apparently if a middle voice verb is translated in the middle voice it will appear that the subject performs the action so it is translated in the passive voice, in that situation. Keathly , as far as I can determine from this, is arguing that

tongues can cease of their own accord in a figurative sense, in that tongues is being personified so a middle voice tranaslation of 1 cor. 13.8 is permissible. His objection is not to a middle voice verb being translated in the passive when the subject is incapable of performing the action. His objection is that it doesn't have to be literal but can be figurative. since he says it is figurative he is in effect agreeing that middle voice verbs are to be translated in the passive, if the subject is incapable of performing the action. Like a tree can't sing a song. a tree had been singing a song? is that middle voice.? so then one would translate it
"a tree was made to sing a song."

I tell you every single time I find you misquoting, quoting out-of-context, deliberately misrepresenting sources, scripture, etc.

The problem is You haven't shown me misquoting anything. AS to out of context, that depends on ones understanding of what Keathley is saying, AS to deliberite,well what I quoted does not misrepresent what my understanding of what Keathley said is, so there is no deception involved.

And I usually include a colorful expression, such as having your head stuck in a dark hole, or backing up your RV and discharging the holding tank, as you have done in this post.

Yea i always find them humorous, i just laughed again. . I don't feel I have been harsh with statements like "your ship sinketh" I certainly try and not be harsh, no doubt sometimes i step over the line , being harsh with people is a way of putting them on a lower level than oneself, and if one feels inadequate in a certain area it is an effective means of makeing oneself appear adequate in that certain area, in one's own eyes that is.. It's a "hey I can't be that bad in this area, look everyone else is worse than me and I'll prove it to them by showing them what an idiot they are" sort of thing. i don't think I have done that. but we all try and protect our ego or self to some degree. You have a much superior knowledge of greek than I do, So I have to argue from a smaller data base than you do. So I just read what people in the know say about a certain greek grammatical point and go from there. I feel the pressure to strike back when dealing with someone who is more knowledgable, and I restrain myself. We all gotta protect or ego, none of us wants to be vulnerable. Like with this thing Keathley wrote, I laboured under the assumption he was talking wholely about middle deponent verbs, but just now realize he is talking about 1 cor. 13.8 whether pauvw is middle or deponent. It makes what he is saying now much clearer to me. But hey I can't be vulnerable and say. "hey I misunderstood what he was saying" I might look bad. so we all try and protect our selfs.so really I suppose a middle deponent verb can be reflexive or not depends on the context. Based on what I've read. but it is apparently middle voice verbs that are always relfexive. that is the sticking point in 1 cor. 13.8. I gotta tell you I had a hard time figuring out what Keathley was talking about, it was total greek to me at first.

You cannot prove diddly squat by misquoting your own source. When a source presents an an opposing argument, to refute the argument, the opposing argument does NOT prove anything. You have done this twice in this same article.

Well so far your example above hasn't shown me that I misquoted or even misrepresented what Keathly said. misquote would be saying "I said" when i actually said "I was saying" correct? misrepresenting would be quoting something to mean something other than what the author intended it to mean. correct? so I pass both tests. i did neither.

And your out-of-context arguments are incredibly easy to refute. All I have to do is show the context of the rest of the paragraph.

Explaining what Keathly meant is the best way to show whether I misrepresented what he said. you failed to show what he meant. Also by showing my understanding of what Keathley is saying I have disproven the calim that I deleberately misrepresented what he said. I did not misrepresent my understanding of what Keathley was saying by only quoting the part I did. I misrepresented your understanding of what he was saying perhaps.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

As I was saying: YHWH is ONE Spirit, which is to say, one being, and uncreated self existing LIFE that LIVES, or BREATH WHO BREATHES, and is three Persons, a Trinity.

Adam is one created spirit, that is to say one being, originally made 'son of God [Luke 3:38, but dead spiritually since the fall], made male and female [Genesis 5:2], to multiply the seed placed within the firstborn -in Adam- as Living sons of God [Malachi 2:15], 'a billionity' to an unknown power =X' =to ourselves, but known to the creator.

Christ, the New Man, is ONE Spirit, the WORD of GOD, in New Man nature, or created human 'flesh', One being, and all who are adopted by His One Spirit are added or joined to that One Spirit as living sons of God, in Him, the Firstborn New Man -which will be, in the end, a billionity to an unknown power, also, to us.

In Adam, all die, in Christ, all are made alive.
The first man was of the earth, earthy, the Last Man is the YHWH from heaven.

 

[2ducklow]

As I was saying: YHWH is ONE Spirit, which is to say, one being, and uncreated self existing LIFE that LIVES, or BREATH WHO BREATHES, and is three Persons, a Trinity.

Adam is one created spirit, that is to say one being, originally made 'son of God [Luke 3:38, but dead spiritually since the fall], made male and female [Genesis 5:2], to multiply the seed placed within the firstborn -in Adam- as Living sons of God [Malachi 2:15], 'a billionity' to an unknown power =X' =to ourselves, but known to the creator.

I don't think you are going to find any trinitarians that will carry the illogic of many beings being one being to the realm of mankind. You're goingto have to stand alone on this one I'm afraid. It seems that is what you're saying anyway. wnat is the verse that causes you to believe Adam is a spirit? Adam had flesh and bones and a soul and a human spirit in my estimation. A spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, see below.

[Christ, the New Man, is ONE Spirit, the WORD of GOD, in New Man nature, or created human 'flesh', One being, and all who are adopted by His One Spirit are added or joined to that One Spirit as living sons of God, in Him, the Firstborn New Man -which will be, in the end, a billionity to an unknown power, also, to us.

In Adam, all die, in Christ, all are made alive.
The first man was of the earth, earthy, the Last Man is the YHWH from heaven.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

As I was saying: YHWH is ONE Spirit, which is to say, one being, and uncreated self existing LIFE that LIVES, or BREATH WHO BREATHES, and is three Persons, a Trinity.

Adam is one created spirit, that is to say one being, originally made 'son of God [Luke 3:38, but dead spiritually since the fall], made male and female [Genesis 5:2], to multiply the seed placed within the firstborn -in Adam- as Living sons of God [Malachi 2:15], 'a billionity' to an unknown power =X' =to ourselves, but known to the creator.

Christ, the New Man, is ONE Spirit, the WORD of GOD, in New Man nature, or created human 'flesh', One being, and all who are adopted by His One Spirit are added or joined to that One Spirit as living sons of God, in Him, the Firstborn New Man -which will be, in the end, a billionity to an unknown power, also, to us.

In Adam, all die, in Christ, all are made alive.
The first man was of the earth, earthy, the Last Man is the YHWH from heaven.

Now, taking 2ducklow's mis-wording of Scripture in John to the level of degeneracy that he wishes;
"God is one Spirit" [Agreed, but the text doesn't say that there].. God is in Spirit [makes no sense] God is with Spirit"[no sense, again].
H-M-M-M! I think I'll just stick with the way it is written.
"God is Spirit"


Is God 'Man 'or is the New Man 'God' walking in that nature of the New Man flesh?
Hebrews 7:3.
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;."

..'made like unto' 'passed off like the image of ' for the purpose of showing the truth of 'no genealogy of the Son of God': no beginning of days, no genealogy, no Father, no mother, no end of life.

The Creator called our created being 'Adam' Genesis 5:2, and made us male and female, one spirit, in the day He made us, to multiply the godly seed, Malachi 2:15.

'Adam' is Hebrew for 'Man' which is what He called our 'being', and Adam is all persons who are multiplied, male and fenale, from the seed of one flesh which was made 'one' spirit.

Sorry that you can't discover the difference in persons within a being and the distinctness of the beings, but that is just the Word of God and your problem in not accepting it does not negate the facts.

I rest my case.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Keathley did say what I quoted him as saying.[/SIZE]

No Keathley did not say what you quoted! Keathley paraphrased an opposing view for the purpose of refuting that view. You quoted only the opposing view and omitted Keathley's counter argument, which began in the next sentence.

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage; If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:23 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pauvsontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives. The real force of pauvw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.​

[SIZE=-1]The problem is You haven't shown me misquoting anything. AS to out of context, that depends on ones understanding of what Keathley is saying, AS to deliberite,well what I quoted does not misrepresent what my understanding of what Keathley said is, so there is no deception involved.[/SIZE]

I certainly have shown how, you not only quoted this paragraph out-of-context but also where Keathley quoted Mounce to refute his argument. Both times you quoted the opposing argument, omitted Keathley's counter argument, and presented the opposing argument as if that was Keathley's position.

[SIZE=-1]I gotta tell you I had a hard time figuring out what Keathley was talking about, it was total greek to me at first.[/SIZE]

You have been in everybody's face for a few days now, claiming only you understand deponent verbs, based on Keathley. Now you admit you didn't even know or understand what your own source was saying.

[SIZE=-1]Well so far your example above hasn't shown me that I misquoted or even misrepresented what Keathly said. misquote would be saying "I said" when i actually said "I was saying" correct? misrepresenting would be quoting something to mean something other than what the author intended it to mean. correct? so I pass both tests. i did neither.
Explaining what Keathly meant is the best way to show whether I misrepresented what he said. you failed to show what he meant. Also by showing my understanding of what Keathley is saying I have disproven the calim that I deleberately misrepresented what he said. I did not misrepresent my understanding of what Keathley was saying by only quoting the part I did. I misrepresented your understanding of what he was saying perhaps.[/SIZE]

You have spent several days telling us what Keathley supposedly said. Now you want me to explain it? I have explained it at least three times. It is a common practice for scholars to quote an opposing view, for the purpose of refuting that view.

Keathley clearly showed where he was doing so and clearly presented his counter argument, immediately after the quote. In both instances, you quoted the opposing view and omitted Keathley's counter argument.

This is the opposing view presented by Keathley. This is what you quoted claiming it was Keathley's position.

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive.​

This is Keathley's counter argument. Note the disjunctive "But" which distinguishes his position from the immediately preceding opposing view.

But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage; If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:23 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pauvsontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives. The real force of pauvw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.​

We know that wind and waves are inanimate objects but that is not necessarily the point of view (POV) of first century Jews, out on a tempestuous sea in a small boat. See Keathley's comments.

This passage is written from a 1st century Jewish POV not my, or your, 21st century POV.

 

[Harlin]

As I was saying: YHWH is ONE Spirit, which is to say, one being, and uncreated self existing LIFE that LIVES, or BREATH WHO BREATHES, and is three Persons, a Trinity.

Adam is one created spirit, that is to say one being, originally made 'son of God [Luke 3:38, but dead spiritually since the fall], made male and female [Genesis 5:2], to multiply the seed placed within the firstborn -in Adam- as Living sons of God [Malachi 2:15], 'a billionity' to an unknown power =X' =to ourselves, but known to the creator.

Christ, the New Man, is ONE Spirit, the WORD of GOD, in New Man nature, or created human 'flesh', One being, and all who are adopted by His One Spirit are added or joined to that One Spirit as living sons of God, in Him, the Firstborn New Man -which will be, in the end, a billionity to an unknown power, also, to us.

In Adam, all die, in Christ, all are made alive.
The first man was of the earth, earthy, the Last Man is the YHWH from heaven.

Hello,

Although Adam is the name of mankind, Adam is also the name of the original "Adam" the person or the Father of mankind. We are all different persons, but not in the same "being", we simply come under the same title of "Adam" meaning mankind.

Same with God, He is His own person, or being, and He has a Son like we have children. This does not mean that Jesus is the same being as the Father or vice versa. We are made in their image. They are separate, so are we, they have their own persons, so do we. The Father has a Son, who has all the divine attributes of His Father, just like we have children who have all the human attributes of us.

19."Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, even his eternal power and GODHEAD; so that they are without EXCUSE" Rom 1:19-20.

Why do people insist on "spiritualising" God, when we are told that we can clearly understand the Godhead by the things that are created. We are made in the image of God, and yet we try and conform God to our understanding. Where is the scripture which says that there are three eternal persons in the trinity "being" of God??????.

My Bible says we have ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one LORD Jesus Christ, by who are all things, and we by him. 1 Corin 8:6

One God, and one Lord. That's all. I see no beings made up of mulitiple persons here, do you?

God Bless,

Natasha

 

[2ducklow]

This is the opposing view presented by Keathley. This is what you quoted claiming it was Keathley's position.

The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauvw is equivalent to a passive.

No.that is not the opposing view that is the argument for the opposing view. The opposing view is that pauvw should be a deponent verb.

This is Keathley's counter argument. Note the disjunctive "But" which distinguishes his position from the immediately preceding opposing view.

But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage; If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:23 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pauvsontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives. The real force of pauvw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.

The two views are highlighted in red and underlined above. these are the two opposing views he is dealing with.
The misunderstanding of the literary features is that the wind and the sea can cease voluntarily (personification) and it has to be the case because Jesus rebuked them and they obeyed, according to Keathley. This is the literary feature his opponents misunderstand. The literary feature of the bible. The misunderstanding is not their grammatical reason for opposing a middle voice for pauvw but the misunderstanding is literary, the literary of the bible, how Jesus rebuked them and they obeyed.

Again, Keathley is essentially validating the grammatical reason for translating pauvw as a deponent verb but rejects its application in this instance because of literary, not grammatical, features. I.e. that Jesus rebuked the wind and it obeyed therefore wind is voluntarily ceasing(figuratively) .
So Keathley is in agreement. At the least he lists a reason for translating pauvw as a deponent verb and makes no direct comment on its validity or nonvalidity, but his statements support indirectly his acceptance of the validity of the grammatical argument. In that he rejects its application on literary, not grammatical grounds.
He essientially is saying , "That's bad bible understaning on thier part". He is not saying "thats bad grammar on their part."

Keathly validates the grammar of taking a middle voice verb in the passive voice if the subject can;t perform the action by saying it can be middle voice if you take the subject to be a personification. Hence no need to translate the verb in a passive voice because you've personified the subject. thus avoiding that necessity..

You have spent several days telling us what Keathley supposedly said. Now you want me to explain it? I have explained it at least three times. It is a common practice for scholars to quote an opposing view, for the purpose of refuting that view.

problem is you still haven't explained it. you haven't explained what the opposing view is. you have only indicated that you do not understand what they are talking about, by claiming that translating pauvw as a passive is the opposing view.

You have been in everybody's face for a few days now, claiming only you understand deponent verbs, based on Keathley. Now you admit you didn't even know or understand what your own source was saying.

WEll I was the only one trying to figure out what Keathley was saying. Everybody else wanted to shift the topic to something else. no one was explaining what a deponent verb was. Only I was doing the reasearch. I made some errors trying to figure it out. but i eventually got it. if you read this post very carefully maybe you too will come to understand his explanations as well.

As I am unimpressed by the rank dishonesty, and hypocrisy, of the piece of this, piece of that, out-of-context copy/paste arguments being posted. And when one argument is blown away, our friend (he means me 2dl) pretends like nothing happened back to the 'net to find another argument that might work

.
Would you have still said that I was being dishonest and a hypocrite if I had said
" I believe Keathly is indirectly stating his agreement with the grammatical reasons for translating Pauvw as a deponent verb but is in disagreement on literary grounds."

I see no significant difference from that in what I said. "Keathley said that a middle voice verb is translated passive if the subject cannot perform the action."
I don't remember my exact words but they were something to that effect. So basically I'm a hypocrite because I left out 'indirect'. pretty tough standards for anyone to live by.I would have likewise been dishonest if I had said , "Mounce said that middle voice verbs should be translated in the passive voice if the subject is incapable of perfoming the action." Mounce didn't say it , Keathley said it as one of their reasons for rejecting the middle voice view of pauvw. indirectly it can be gleaned that that is mounce's posisiton.

if you're going to call people hypocirtes and dishonest over something like this what does that say about your integrity?



So you see this is why I wanted you to say what it was that i said or did that caused you to call me a hypocrite and dishonest. So that I could defend against your false charges .. I have shown here that I was not dishonest or hypocritical.
I might adivce you to try and understand what the subject is before you accuse someone the next time of being dishonest and a hypocrite. At least have some justification for it.

 

[2ducklow]

Of course the entire discourse above is a mere straining at a gnat over who said what. the significant point is that the reason the KJV scholars translated egeneto as 'was made' when 'was made' is not middle voice or middle deponent voice, is that it is explained by thier statement (whoever you want to say said it, NT scholars or Keathley) that a middle voice verb is translated in the passive voice if the subject is incapable of perfoming the action due to it's being an inantimate object. . do you see the significance? it means the KJV scholars considered word to be an inantimate object which is why they translated a middle voice verb, (egeneto is middle voice in form but active in meaning) as "was made" which is passive. In short they considered " the word" to be an it and not a he. that is the only thing I can see that would explain their using "was made." as a translation of egeneto.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Hello,

Although Adam is the name of mankind, Adam is also the name of the original "Adam" the person or the Father of mankind. We are all different persons, but not in the same "being", we simply come under the same title of "Adam" meaning mankind.
...

One God, and one Lord. That's all. I see no beings made up of mulitiple persons here, do you?

God Bless,

Natasha

In fact, Harlin, all multiplied beings are made of many persons.
YHWH is a self existing eternal multiplicity of three Persons, in Scripture.
All three Persons are YHWH; one is come in the flesh of the New Creation human being, as brother to Adam, and therefore legal Redeemer of Adam and his kingdom that the firstborn in Adam sold.

Yes, we call the first man Adam, but that is a Hebrew word of YHWH's call for 'man', and the first Adam was made male and female -two persons- from one spirit -Malachi 2:15. and told to multiply.

What is multiplied is 'Adam' [man], one Adam being [one mankind], and the multiplication produces individual persons, male and female.

If you will be so kind as to open your concordance and look at the original Hebrew word, 'Adam', and all the places YHWH uses it through the Old Testament, then you will see that the human persons are all called 'Adam multiplied], by YHWH.
Begin with Genesis 5:2 and Genesis 6:1-3, in Hebrew; Adam is the name of the persons, male and female, which is the one being (one spirit, Malachi 2:15), that is multiplied. When 'Adam began to multiply on the face of earth and daughters born'...that is the original, and the first Adam was dead by then....but the multiplying goes on until the eighth day of creation, when all seed of Adam will be cut off from multiplying, as the sign of circumcision given to Abra 'Ha' m is the oracle of.