John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

Dan:
We are talking past each other. May I make a suggestion. Instead of arguing about what we said and when, would you mind making your argument briefly again? Then we can bypass all this re-hashing which is just complicating the issue.

I will state my position on this and you can follow:

1. John 8:58 is a PPA where the adverb PRIN changes the verbal aspect of the present tense EIMI to include a past time so that the time frame is continuous from a point in time before Abraham until Jesus spoke those words.
2. Ps 90:2 is not a PPA because there is no adverb and therefore PRO, a preposition can answer the “when” of its clause but not function like PRIN in John 8:58 and change its verbal aspect.
3. You don’t really want John 8:58 to be a PPA because this interpretation does not aid the understanding that EGW EIMI proves eternal existence.

Dan, you have missed a very important point, and I believe that many of those that you are referring have missed it as well. We are dealing here with Koine Greek, a language being used at the time, a living language. In the worlld of academia there is a tendency to look not for commonality, but for universality so that a rule governing all cases might be formulated. Language doesn’t work that way. We can find tendencies, but there are few absolutes (except for ablatives) in languages as people use them. The word epiousion does not exist in Greek, but we find it in both Matt. and Lk. Languages are not rule bound in their usage. “I bought it for you and I,” is a grammatical error, but it is far from uncommon in common usage. Has the rule changed? Of course not, but if in two hundred years someone were to look at 20th century English in a limited setting, he might say that the rule making the object of the preposition an objective case no longer existed. There is really no point in continuing these postings, because I make simple requests and they go unanswered - I ask again in bold face - they remain unanswered -I change the font and add color, none of it gets a response. You are trying to formulate new rules where none exist, you misunderstand prepositions (viz ; you maintain that prin Abraham is not a prepositional phrase and that prin is an adverb rather than a preposition, but you refuse to explain the function of Abraham in the sentence).
Dan, I am weary of this. But you have managed to make certain that I will pray for you, and you have my promise that I will. Adieu.

Dan:
No problem, Danno, you don’t need to continue to discuss this if you don’t want to. In summary we started talking about Proverbs 8:22-30 and that temporal language proves the Son had a beginning unless you take a philosophical view of time which no bible writer teaches. Next you bring up “I am” in Ex 3:14 and I proved that the Greek there has no connection to John 8:58. Then you bring up John 8:58 and Kliest-Lily and I both agree that this is a PPA and that the eternal nature of the Son is not explicit there but that they say it is merely “suggested.” Kliest-Lily also says John 8:58 has no connection to Ex 3:14. Then you bring up Ps 90:2 but don’t really explain why this might help you in John 8:58. Then we get mired down in disagreements about grammatical nuances that don’t really help you at all. Ps 90:2 certainly speaks of the eternity of God, but because of language that is not found at all in John 8:58 and for which there is no parallel in John 8:58.

That’s is how I see it. You never did make an argument with Ps 90:2.

Is that how you remember it?

 

[brb2]

John 1:1-3

In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being thru HIM …

Codex Sinaiticus … approx 350 AD, earliest surviving Bible. Can be read online in original Greek, or English trans.