Help refuting this idea

[Voco_proTatiano]

Genitive or ablative?
Example: ‘A box made of wood’
Case here is clearly ablative. The box is not belonging to the wood, but wood is used, or ablated in its construction.
The preposition ‘from’ also indicates the ablative case.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Genitive or ablative?
Example: ‘A box made of wood’
Case here is clearly ablative. The box is not belonging to the wood, but wood is used, or ablated in its construction.
The preposition ‘from’ also indicates the ablative case.

St. Thomas talks about different “causes”;

In the case above:
The effective cause of the box is it’s maker and it is inferred that wood “belongs to” the box – it is the same wood.
but the wood is the material cause of the Box.

In the sentence you constructed, a dative preposition might be more precise.
A dative/datum locates something, a beginning or end (place of origin, purpose, etc.).

A box made from wood. A box made in wood. A box made out of wood.

In English the middle one is still correct, although awkward sounding because it isn’t clear that ‘in’ is not ‘inside’ or ‘into’.

Using ‘of’ by itself can be always be done when translating the genitive case but one can’t always use “of” when translating the dative case; Hence using just “of” as an ablative obscures the influences of the original language.

I have never found the ablative case you just used to be necessary in order to make a good translation, and I think it more of a translational opinion than a linguistic necessity. In English we don’t have distinct dative and genitive declensions/word endings; so choosing the proper preposition in English has to be done another way.

Revisit the wine sentence; I might hypothetically translate it while borrowing your taxonomy/classification of the words:

“Not only water are you to drink, but (sed?) with wine moderated”

I am preserving word order and as much of the influence of the original language as I know how to do.

 

[Contarini]

Do not confuse the Vulgate with Latin.
The Latin Gospels date from AD200, or a cople of years later.
Jerome used the OLD LATIN virtually unmodified.
The Old Latin was back translated into Greek and other tongues including Hebrew and Syriac, (Aramaic) almost immediately.

Evidence for this claim of “back translation”?

I mean, I could claim that it’s all really translated from Klingon. But people would ask, where’s the evidence for that? So I am asking you.

Edwin

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

St. Thomas talks about different “causes”;

In the case above:
The effective cause of the box is it’s maker and it is inferred that wood “belongs to” the box – it is the same wood.
but the wood is the material cause of the Box.

In the sentence you constructed, a dative preposition might be more precise.
A dative/datum locates something, a beginning or end (place of origin, purpose, etc.).

A box made from wood. A box made in wood. A box made out of wood.

In French and Latin, there is not a seperation between ‘of’ and ‘from’. In both laguages, the word used is ‘de’.

In English the middle one is still correct, although awkward sounding because it isn’t clear that ‘in’ is not ‘inside’ or ‘into’.

Using ‘of’ by itself can be always be done when translating the genitive case but one can’t always use “of” when translating the dative case; Hence using just “of” as an ablative obscures the influences of the original language.

I have never found the ablative case you just used to be necessary in order to make a good translation, and I think it more of a translational opinion than a linguistic necessity. In English we don’t have distinct dative and genitive declensions/word endings; so choosing the proper preposition in English has to be done another way.

I agree. In English we have long stopped using these niceties, but they are very hepful in understanding the Latin texts. An adjective is ALWAYS in the same case and number as the noun it describes. This way we know that ‘modico’ refers to ‘vino’, and not he manner in which it is used.

Revisit the wine sentence; I might hypothetically translate it while borrowing your taxonomy/classification of the words:

“Not only water are you to drink, but (sed?) with wine moderated”

I am preserving word order and as much of the influence of the original language as I know how to do.

It is almost impossible to retain the Latin word order in English. The phrase order can be preserved, but to preserve word order, so many commas are needed, that the snse is lost.

In English, dative/ablative is collapsed into ‘indirect object’ along with all cases which use any kind of preposition.
Dative and ablative are NOT the same.
Ablative is implied by ‘with’, ‘within’, ‘of’, ‘from’, ‘by’.
Dative is implied by ‘to’.
There are exceptions, however.

In the Timothy sentence however, the verb in the second phrase is not ‘to drink’, but ‘to use’, and even in English, we still use this verb with an ablative construct, that is, ‘to make use of’

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It is almost impossible to retain the Latin word order in English. The phrase order can be preserved, but to preserve word order, so many commas are needed, that the snse is lost.

Yes, I was merely meaning in our example sentence I kept word order; not that it was the most correct ordering for English; I do this when examining sentences, although it does make them very awkward, to make me actually think THROUGH reasons for the awkwardness. Then I look for a minimum way to change the sentence in order to make the meaning come [out] well. (We haven’t done that yet.)

In English, dative/ablative is collapsed into ‘indirect object’ along with all cases which use any kind of preposition.
Dative and ablative are NOT the same.

Yes, I know my writing suggested the possibility that they were the same.
Thank you for clarifying.

Ablative is implied by ‘with’, ‘within’, ‘of’, ‘from’, ‘by’.
Dative is implied by ‘to’.
There are exceptions, however.

Yes, but a vague idea of the correct meaning is generally found even in the exceptions; English word connotation (1st definitions/delineations too) are the meanings that 1st come to mind when reading an English word. But often translation “exceptions” can still be understood as if there were no exception – when thinking about second or third definitions and sphere of influence/discourse; eg: a Good translator has to be able to see the meaning even in poorly written English sentences – in order to translate from a language where the connotation of the word is suspect. So, too, the apologist needs to learn to do.

The question to ask is “in what way” is the “to” meant?

eg: use not only water, but to moderate wine.

After thinking about it, it is clear that a “reference thing” in some way goes to “moderate wine”
The only thing specified in the subject is “water/not only water”, so I would infer that the general relationship is “water to wine”; eg: possibly: “use water in/to wine”

And then I would recall the wedding feast of Cana, the Last Supper and the liturgical Tradition of the Latin church that a LITTLE water was to be added to the wine.

So the most basic idea I can come up with is to rePlace in some way the wine with water; or Add to wine, some water; or change water -into- wine.

The subject, “Use NOT ONLY water”, excludes rePlacing all the wine.

Therefore I see it as, add water into wine – or – turn water into wine.
There might be other possibilities, but THIS translator saw only these now.
Can you augment ME?

I recall a “bishop” like Timothy was supposed to act as Jesus did.

For medicinal purposes, the first variation of my idea is earthly advice; but the second variation is either liturgical or miraculous doctoring of wine; in both cases, we have healing associated: And so I infer that in one way, The Eucharistic wine is medicinal against (venial/small) sins just as much as the Eucharistic bread is.
Use not only “water” means other real food or drink is possible

The advice also suggests to me that the Wedding at Cana had a small sin because they ran out of wine; Eg: They had only water when Jesus came into the house bringing NEW/More disciples with him as a burden. If the water was not good by itself, then clearly what Jesus did was make the “best” rather than a “weak” wine, in order to insure good health at the earthly and heavenly banquet.

Use not only water, but [a] moderate wine.

Now I know moderate can mean “reduced from full strength”; or it can mean “without need to reduce the strength of” ; I don’t know if there are special connotations in Latin; and the only way I would know is to word search and compare all occurrences of it to find out which is the most contextually correct meaning. Again, do you know of places where “moderate” in the Latin means “weak”? How common is this meaning?

In the Timothy sentence however, the verb in the second phrase is not ‘to drink’, but ‘to use’, and even in English, we still use this verb with an ablative construct, that is, ‘to make use of’

It can be done that way, but why is it the best translation to suggest a “weak” wine?

 

[DavidWJackson]

The scriptures do not promote the use of wine, so much as it recognizes its desirable qualities and uses to mankind; health and celebration. I believe, drinking to an altered state of mind is tollerated by God if within the confines of family and friends when celebrating the achievement of a great event in one’s life. However, to drink just to reach an altered state of mind for no real reason other than to say “to party” I personal believe falls into the deadly sin of Glutting. Be sure to confess any glutted acts you have had. Fight to keep your’s and all of your friends souls from falling to perdition. You know this is only common sense anyhow. Don’t you?

 

[PJM]

=callmealejandro;8650589]I was having a discussion with two of my friends and one of them said that the bible promotes the use of alcohol. I countered that with Ephesians 5:18 (…Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…). The other friend then asked if it is okay to kill adulterers and fortunetellers because it says to in the bible…

What can my response be? Why does the bible tell us to do these things?

My dear friend in Christ,

KNOW that you have THEE Truth on you’re side.
On the issue of alcohol use. BACK in those day’s [like France today] wine was the common drink in place of coffee or tea. In part in was known to assist ones health

**1Tim.5: 23 **“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.”

That said the bible is Clearly against drukenness.
Luke 21: 34-36 " “But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.”

NEXT: When ever confrionted with ANYTHING you do nor know to be true: ASK THEM FOR SPECIFIC evidence of there calim.

THEN: Know that the most basic, infact INFALLIBLE rule for right understanding ogf the bible is: NEVER, EVER CAN ONE PART OF THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ANOTHE R PORTION OF THE BIBLE. WERE SUCH EVEN THE SLIGHEST POSSIBILITY THE BIBLE WOULD BE WORTHLRSS FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING ONE’S FAITH.

Next take there “evifdence” open your bible and read the chaper that BOTH preceeds the verse and follows the verse. Within that ought to be evidence that thet have a wrong or at least an incomplete understanding.

What your “friend” ask about killing goes back to the OT Laws and responses for sinful acts. READ the book of Leveticus and Duet. And you’ll see what I mean.

These were DIFFERENT Old TestementTimes and God permitted DIFFERENT punishments because this was a "stiff-necked [OBSTINANT PEOPLE] Exod.32: 9 "And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people”

NOTE also that these were God approved ONLY under the OT Laws which were ABORTED and VOIDED in the New Covenant.

**Jer.31: 31 **"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”

**Luke.22: 20 **“And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”

2Cor.3: 6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life“.

Heb.8: 8, 13 ” For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Heb.9: 5 “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant“.

Hope this helps you out?

Whenever in DOUBT, tell them you’d don’t knoe for sure but you’ll get back to them. Get the answer and DO get back to them with it:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

Feel free to send me a Private message with any questions you have.

 

[TimothyH]

As to wine:
1Timo 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

Here in Oregon, a gentle man – Bishop Kenneth Steiner – has just retired.
I am told, that the stress of becoming bishop led him to need some wine for his stomach – but I know wisdom born of distress when I see it; And for some reason I do see it in him – A little wine helps, but more is not better; and sometimes wine isn’t the solution but a change of pastorship.

Sewage systems at the time of Jesus was often no more than a ditch in the middle of the street. That is why the lowest servants and slaves had to wash their master’s feet, because they were often covered with human and animal waste.

Streams, creeks and rivers were often contaminated with human waste. This is why people mixed wine with water. The Bible mentions mixing wine several times and contamination with human and animal waste was probably why Timothy was getting sick. Four parts water was typically mixed with one part wine as the alcohol will kill much of the bacteria. Even throughout the middle ages many would drink wine instead of water or brew their own ale.

I’m sure the good bishop had reason to take a glass of wine now and then. It is not a sin. But the biblical reason was most likely contaminated public drinking water.

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Tim.

Sewage systems at the time of Jesus was often no more than a ditch in the middle of the street. That is why the lowest servants and slaves had to wash their master’s feet, because they were often covered with human and animal waste.

I’ve seen pictures of Rome with that type of system; but I didn’t know Ephesus was the same (I assume that’s Where Timothy was.). It’s a reasonable idea.

I’m sure the good bishop had reason to take a glass of wine now and then. It is not a sin. But the biblical reason was most likely contaminated public drinking water.

-Tim-

Sure, but St. Paul’s reasoning may not have been fully associated with the knowledge of what contamination does; It is also an expression which is tied to the Eucharistic wine; and when people are near death, they sent priests to annoint them with holy oil; And so, I surmise that they saw in this act a spiritual priestly dimension in addition to mere common practice.

In the old testament, foods were called unclean – and often people try to use trichinosis or other diseases as a reason to not eat Pork; but when Jesus comes, scripture records that he “made all things clean.” And later he commanded Peter to slaughter and eat foods which were traditionally considered unclean.

This is a reversal of practice, which many will point to as evidence of the arbitrary nature of the Law; and suggest that man can figure out what the law really should be. But, according to Jesus – he boasts that such a thing in the OT was speaking of him and prefigured him. For, when God is with man, the dangers of these foods is subject to his ability to form even chaos into life.

It would surprise me if the advice of Paul was not also liturgically minded.

 

[TimothyH]

Hi Tim.

I’ve seen pictures of Rome with that type of system; but I didn’t know Ephesus was the same (I assume that’s Where Timothy was.). It’s a reasonable idea.

Sure, but St. Paul’s reasoning may not have been fully associated with the knowledge of what contamination does; It is also an expression which is tied to the Eucharistic wine; and when people are near death, they sent priests to annoint them with holy oil; And so, I surmise that they saw in this act a spiritual priestly dimension in addition to mere common practice.

In the old testament, foods were called unclean – and often people try to use trichinosis or other diseases as a reason to not eat Pork; but when Jesus comes, scripture records that he “made all things clean.” And later he commanded Peter to slaughter and eat foods which were traditionally considered unclean.

This is a reversal of practice, which many will point to as evidence of the arbitrary nature of the Law; and suggest that man can figure out what the law really should be. But, according to Jesus – he boasts that such a thing in the OT was speaking of him and prefigured him. For, when God is with man, the dangers of these foods is subject to his ability to form even chaos into life.

It would surprise me if the advice of Paul was not also liturgically minded.

Your point is well taken.

The Bible is more than just a collection of events. God did not tell us of Paul urging Timothy to take wine because he wanted us to know about the sewer systems. There is an alegorical sense to all scipture - it all points to Christ.

I repent in dust and ashes.

-Tim-

 

[oyaji]

Non-Christians just love bringing up laws under the Mosaic Covenant in an attempt to poke fun at Christians. When they do, just remind them that we now live under a new Covenant established by Jesus Christ. And then ask them where Jesus says we are to kill ANYONE, sacrifice animals, etc…

It’s worked wonders for me

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Non-Christians just love bringing up laws under the Mosaic Covenant in an attempt to poke fun at Christians. When they do, just remind them that we now live under a new Covenant established by Jesus Christ. And then ask them where Jesus says we are to kill ANYONE, sacrifice animals, etc…

It’s worked wonders for me

はい。 ウランは売らん The simple answer is often best in short conversations…

and Welcome to the Forums, oyaji!