John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.

Dan:
I do agree that the Son existed from before Abraham was born continuously until he spoke those words in John 8:58. That can hardly be used to prove that he existed as long as his Father has existed.

In addition, since Jesus said he existed **before **Abraham was born then this implies that his existence is being considered in **temporal **terms. Otherwise he should have said something to the effect of “I have always existed!”

As for the “present tense” to which you appeal in this Catholic bible version, Kliest-Lily clearly does not represent John 8:58 as present tense in English when they use the word “was” as in “I am here-and I **was **before Abraham.”

 

[Dan_Parker]

*]E. D. Burton in, "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek:, section 17, "The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." **
]G.B Winer in, “A Treatise of the Grammar of the New Testament Greek”, p. 334, "Sometimes the present tense includes a preterit when the verb indicates a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues Jo viii.58"
]Sanders and Masten , in "Harper’s New Testament Commentaries:, p. 158, "To describe a state continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense (EXEI) where English uses the Perfect; cf. John viii.58 "
*]**J. H. Moulton and N. Turner **in “A Grammar of New Testament Greek”, p. 62, "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking Jn 8 58 "

As you can see, there is no thought here of a time period which is unbounded as in eternity in view. Kliest-Lily does not say that. They say it suggests it. Of course after refuting a favorite proof-text for Trinitarians they need to provide some solace.

Continue to Kliest-Lily - John 8:58: Ex 3:14 and time Part 2 of 2

Danno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ', This is, in Burton’s words: "accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." Now where would I find such a structure? Oh, in Psalm 90! “From everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Pray tell what English idiom requires the perfect tense in this?

Dan:
Danno, Danno, Danno. What are we going to do with you?

Please quote Burton accurately! He does not say “temporal clause” he says “an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time”!

Why is this significant? Because it is ADVERBS that modify verbs. The word in John 8:58 is an adverb, PRIN. PRO is a preposition and not an adverb. I looked in BDAG and did not find any indication that PRO is ever uses AS an adverb.

Therefore, Ps 90:2 is not a PPA. That is why nobody renders it as such.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Danno2281:
At bibleencyclopedia.com

1. Alleged Belief in Canonicity of the Pentateuch Alone:

The Fathers, Hippolytus, Origen and Jerome, credit the Sadducees with regarding the Pentateuch as alone canonical (Hipp., Haer., ix0.24; Orig., Contra Celsum, i0.49; on Matthew 22:24-31; Jerome on Matthew 22:31, 32). This idea may be due to a false identification of the views of the Sadducees with those of the Samaritans. Had they rejected all the rest of Scripture,** it is hardly possible that Josephus would have failed to notice this**. The Talmud does not mention this among their errors. It is certain that they gave more importance to the Pentateuch than to any other of the books of Scripture. Hence, our Lord, in the passage commented on by Origen and Jerome, appeals to the Law rather than to the Prophets or the Psalms. It follows from the little value they put upon the Prophets that they had no sympathy with the Messianic hopes of the Pharisees.

Dan:
Thanks for that quote. I thought Josephus was a good source.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno: Whether a simple present or a PPA the structure denies any change. The same condition persists. What was present before is present now and has remained present. It is the same present. That is what the text clearly says.

Dan:
I do agree that the Son existed from before Abraham was born continuously until he spoke those words in John 8:58. That can hardly be used to prove that he existed as long as his Father has existed.

In addition, since Jesus said he existed **before **Abraham was born then this implies that his existence is being considered in **temporal **terms. Otherwise he should have said something to the effect of “I have always existed!”

As for the “present tense” to which you appeal in this Catholic bible version, Kliest-Lily clearly does not represent John 8:58 as present tense in English when they use the word “was” as in “I am here-and I **was **before Abraham.”

Danno:Why are you so hung up on one translation? Are no others worthy? Again, from post462

You seem to have a serious problem with the word “before.” If I talk about “before the Europeans came to these shores,” that is an open ended statement. The only temporal considerarion is what follows “before.” In the example, the year 450 AD is included, and the year 5747 BC and any concept that antedates the mentioned tiime, “time immemorial.” “Before Abraham” is not temporally restrictive excep insofar as it does not include what comes after the “before.” Why should I cringe? The Judeans understood full well what was meant. You don’t seem to.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ', This is, in Burton’s words: "accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." Now where would I find such a structure? Oh, in Psalm 90! “From everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Pray tell what English idiom requires the perfect tense in this?

Dan:
Danno, Danno, Danno. What are we going to do with you?

Please quote Burton accurately! He does not say “temporal clause” he says “an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time”!

Why is this significant? Because it is ADVERBS that modify verbs. The word in John 8:58 is an adverb, PRIN. PRO is a preposition and not an adverb. I looked in BDAG and did not find any indication that PRO is ever uses AS an adverb.

Therefore, Ps 90:2 is not a PPA. That is why nobody renders it as such.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ', This is, in Burton’s words: "accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases." Now where would I find such a structure? Oh, in Psalm 90! “From everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Pray tell what English idiom requires the perfect tense in this?

Dan:
Danno, Danno, Danno. What are we going to do with you?

Please quote Burton accurately! He does not say “temporal clause” he says “an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time”!

Why is this significant? Because it is ADVERBS that modify verbs. The word in John 8:58 is an adverb, PRIN. PRO is a preposition and not an adverb. I looked in BDAG and did not find any indication that PRO is ever uses AS an adverb.

Therefore, Ps 90:2 is not a PPA. That is why nobody renders it as such.

Danno:If m,yuo do not understand the words “from everlassting to everlasting” as adverbial (detailing how, when where or why), please give me your diagramj of the sentence and show me what their relationship to the rest of the sentence is. This, Dan is grammar school stuff. Prepositional phrases are most frequently used adverbially, again answering how, when where, and why. E.g. “He wealked for a few miles.” “For a few miles” is a prepositional phraswe used adverbially to modify the verb to walk…

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan:
Danno, Danno, Danno. What are we going to do with you?

Please quote Burton accurately! He does not say “temporal clause” he says “an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time”!

Why is this significant? Because it is ADVERBS that modify verbs. The word in John 8:58 is an adverb, PRIN. PRO is a preposition and not an adverb. I looked in BDAG and did not find any indication that PRO is ever uses AS an adverb.

Therefore, Ps 90:2 is not a PPA. That is why nobody renders it as such.

Danno:If m,yuo do not understand the words “from everlassting to everlasting” as adverbial (detailing how, when where or why), please give me your diagramj of the sentence and show me what their relationship to the rest of the sentence is. This, Dan is grammar school stuff. Prepositional phrases are most frequently used adverbially, again answering how, when where, and why. E.g. “He wealked for a few miles.” “For a few miles” is a prepositional phraswe used adverbially to modify the verb to walk…

Dan:
You can’t exegete a Greek text by using English examples. Or at least you should not. However because I find this a very interesting subject I decided to do some research for you.

Originally Greek prepositions started out as adverbs, but they do not function that way now in Koine Greek. You can read about this in Smyth, look in the index. (I have to thank you for pushing me to do this research, it is sometimes the only way I get motivated to advance my Greek). This is why many verbs are prefixed with a preposition. In fact I just looked in BDAG and found PROEIMI which means “be pre-existent.” It is not found in the LXX or GNT. According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has “freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb”. Wallace in his exegetical grammar says that the preposition can modify a verb by answering the question of “when”, etc but that it governs the noun. This means that in the construction of Ps 90:2 that it cannot be used to form a Present of Past Action still in Progress (PPA) because it takes an adverb to transform the present tense form of the verb into this construction. Thank you for making me do the research.

That being said, a Trinitarian really does not want to acknowledge that John 8:58 is a PPA if they are trying to prove that Jesus is eternal. Those are two mutually exclusive propositions.

So I am not clear as to why you bring up Ps 90:2 as a parallel to John 8:58. As for why Ps 90:2 proves that the Father is eternal, it is not found in the SE EI (you are) at all. It is found in what precedes it, APO TOU AIWNOS EWS TOU AIWNOS.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Danno:If m,yuo do not understand the words “from everlassting to everlasting” as adverbial (detailing how, when where or why), please give me your diagramj of the sentence and show me what their relationship to the rest of the sentence is. This, Dan is grammar school stuff. Prepositional phrases are most frequently used adverbially, again answering how, when where, and why. E.g. “He wealked for a few miles.” “For a few miles” is a prepositional phraswe used adverbially to modify the verb to walk…

Dan:
You can’t exegete a Greek text by using English examples. Or at least you should not. However because I find this a very interesting subject I decided to do some research for you.

Originally Greek prepositions started out as adverbs, but they do not function that way now in Koine Greek. You can read about this in Smyth, look in the index. (I have to thank you for pushing me to do this research, it is sometimes the only way I get motivated to advance my Greek). This is why many verbs are prefixed with a preposition. In fact I just looked in BDAG and found PROEIMI which means “be pre-existent.” It is not found in the LXX or GNT. According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has “freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb”. Wallace in his exegetical grammar says that the preposition can modify a verb by answering the question of “when”, etc but that it governs the noun. This means that in the construction of Ps 90:2 that it cannot be used to form a Present of Past Action still in Progress (PPA) because it takes an adverb to transform the present tense form of the verb into this construction. Thank you for making me do the research.

That being said, a Trinitarian really does not want to acknowledge that John 8:58 is a PPA if they are trying to prove that Jesus is -]eternal /-] eternal from that verse. Those are two mutually exclusive propositions.

So I am not clear as to why you bring up Ps 90:2 as a parallel to John 8:58. As for why Ps 90:2 proves that the Father is eternal, it is not found in the -]SE/-] SU EI (you are) at all. It is found in what precedes it, APO TOU AIWNOS EWS TOU AIWNOS.

 

[Danno2281]

Dan:
You can’t exegete a Greek text by using English examples. Or at least you should not. However because I find this a very interesting subject I decided to do some research for you.

Originally Greek prepositions started out as adverbs, but they do not function that way now in Koine Greek. You can read about this in Smyth, look in the index. (I have to thank you for pushing me to do this research, it is sometimes the only way I get motivated to advance my Greek). This is why many verbs are prefixed with a preposition. In fact I just looked in BDAG and found PROEIMI which means “be pre-existent.” It is not found in the LXX or GNT. According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has “freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb”. Wallace in his exegetical grammar says that the preposition can modify a verb by answering the question of “when”, etc but that it governs the noun. This means that in the construction of Ps 90:2 that it cannot be used to form a Present of Past Action still in Progress (PPA) because it takes an adverb to transform the present tense form of the verb into this construction. Thank you for making me do the research.

That being said, a Trinitarian really does not want to acknowledge that John 8:58 is a PPA if they are trying to prove that Jesus is -]eternal /-] eternal from that verse. Those are two mutually exclusive propositions.

So I am not clear as to why you bring up Ps 90:2 as a parallel to John 8:58. As for why Ps 90:2 proves that the Father is eternal, it is not found in the -]SE/-] SU EI (you are) at all. It is found in what precedes it, APO TOU AIWNOS EWS TOU AIWNOS.

Mutually exclusive? Hardly. The best that you can do is tro say that thdey are not compelling. But more to the main thrust of your posting:
Dan: “According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.” Danno: Ah, so “En arche en o Logos” gives us a situation where the prepositional phrase en arche has no adverbial relationship to en ! Dan, you’re grasping at straws that aren’t there, and I’m not buying it, nor do I think that, in your heart of hearts, you are either…

 

[Dan_Parker]

Mutually exclusive? Hardly. The best that you can do is tro say that thdey are not compelling. But more to the main thrust of your posting:
Dan: “According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.” Danno: Ah, so “En arche en o Logos” gives us a situation where the prepositional phrase en arche has no adverbial relationship to en ! Dan, you’re grasping at straws that aren’t there, and I’m not buying it, nor do I think that, in your heart of hearts, you are either…

Dan:
This information on the preposition does not change my view of John 1:1 at all. The preposition EN answers the question “when” but governs the noun ARXH (beginning). It is not an adverb here.

Theophilus considered it locative as “in” the Father (ie at first God was alone, and the Word in Him) In a way it is also locative temporally here as well, for the Word is “in” a period of time, the beginning. As Proverbs 8:22-30 and Rev 3:14 teach, he IS the beginning.

I learned something new (again!) when I Just checked Wallace to see if he might consider EN in John 1:1 adverbial. He does not. On page 360 in Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” he explains how prepositions govern nouns. It is through their cases. When you see a lexicon like BDAG give glosses for prepositions like there are distinct senses for certain prepositions with different cases. EN is followed by the dative. DIA followed by the genitive has the sense of “by” or “through” while when followed by the accusative, “cause.”

In conclusion even the nuance of the usage of prepositions supports my exegesis of John 8:58, Ps 90:2 and John 1:1.

 

[Foreigner]

"Bruce Metzger: “It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists… As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75. " (Here’s a reprint of Metzger’s article, scroll down to section IV ‘Erroneous translations’ archive.org/stream/TheJehovahsWitnessesAndJesusChrist/Jehovahs_Witnesses_and_Jesus_Christ_Metzger#page/n10/mode/1up).

more Greek scholar entries from towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/john_11.htm

I am not a JW but this is incorrect. At most, it would make them henotheists.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I am not a JW but this is incorrect. At most, it would make them henotheists.

Metzger made a big blunder in that article with respect to John 1:1 by quoting Colwell’s rule.

Trinitarians, including Catholics (compare the footnote to John 1:1 in the NAB today compared to 20 years ago) now understand that if QEOS in John 1:1c is definite that this is modalism, not Trinitarianism.

 

[Danno2281]

Dan:
This information on the preposition does not change my view of John 1:1 at all. The preposition EN answers the question “when” but governs the noun ARXH (beginning). It is not an adverb here. (I didn’t say it was an adverb. The phrase that it introduces is an adverbial phrase.

Theophilus considered it locative as “in” the Father (ie at first God was alone, and the Word in Him) (Am I to assume from this that there are no other opinions?) In a way it is also locative temporally here as well, for the Word is “in” a period of time, the beginning. As Proverbs 8:22-30 and Rev 3:14 teach, he IS the beginning.(YES! and the Omega too!)

I learned something new (again!) when I Just checked Wallace to see if he might consider EN in John 1:1 adverbial. He does not. On page 360 in Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” he explains how prepositions govern nouns. It is through their cases. When you see a lexicon like BDAG give glosses for prepositions like there are distinct senses for certain prepositions with different cases. EN is followed by the dative. DIA followed by the genitive has the sense of “by” or “through” while when followed by the accusative, “cause.”

In conclusion even the nuance of the usage of prepositions supports my exegesis of John 8:58, Ps 90:2 and John 1:1.

Let us look at what you tell usan: “According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.”
Danno:This means that there are no prepositional phrases that are adverbial. Their connection is to the noun, not to the verb… If you have rightly described his position, it is simply wrong. Look at 1Cor.7:38 “eph 'oson chronon” where the accusative is an accusative of duration. According to what you have posted this cannot be a temporal prepositional phrase, yet I believe that you can see that it can not be anything but. You move from one purported authority to another, citing anything that promotes your view (and of course neglectinng those that do not), yet nowhere do you respond to my request to point out the relationships of these phrases to the rest of the sentence if they are not adverbial. You tell me (very ineffectively) that they are not what I believe them to be, but you cannot make any grammatical sense out of them. The question of your intellectual integrity looms large.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Let us look at what you tell usan: “According to Smyth (section 1638 ) originally the preposition was a free adverb which modified the verb directly but now when it modifies the verb it is a prefix to that verb. When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.”
Danno:This means that there are no prepositional phrases that are adverbial. Their connection is to the noun, not to the verb… If you have rightly described his position, it is simply wrong. Look at 1Cor.7:38 “eph 'oson chronon” where the accusative is an accusative of duration. According to what you have posted this cannot be a temporal prepositional phrase, yet I believe that you can see that it can not be anything but. You move from one purported authority to another, citing anything that promotes your view (and of course neglectinng those that do not), yet nowhere do you respond to my request to point out the relationships of these phrases to the rest of the sentence if they are not adverbial. You tell me (very ineffectively) that they are not what I believe them to be, but you cannot make any grammatical sense out of them. The question of your intellectual integrity looms large.

You have just provided another example that fits the description of both Smyth and Wallace. Do you know why a preposition is called by that name? It is a pre position, it comes before what it governs. EPI here governs the case of XRONOS. It is XRONON in the accusative. According to Wallace (and other Greek grammars) this has the sense of either a. Spatial: on, upon, to, up to, against or b. Temporal: for, over a period of.

So EPI governs the noun but modifies the verb so that it tells us the how, when, where, etc. That is exactly what I posted previously.

PRO always governs the noun in the genitive with the following: 1. Spatial: before, in front of, at 2. Temporal: before 3. Rank/Priority: before.

However a preposition does not have the ability to directly change a verbal aspect like PRIN does with EIMI in John 8:58. In fact that is a very special category, even for adverbs.

Once again though, a Trinitarian who wants to prove that Jesus is eternal from John 8:58 will avoid calling it a Present of Past Action Still in Progress (PPA) like the plague. Also, Ps 90:2 cannot be a PPA because it does not have an adverb for which to modify the verb at all.

Now, lets looks at Ps 90:2, and ignore the fact that PRO is not a preposition and pretend that it is a preposition. The following is the English Brenton LXX rendering:

LXE Psalm 90:2 {089:2} Before = PRO the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art.

Do you remember me posting that God is eternal in this verse because of the phrase “from age to age”? The Greek is APO TOU AIWNOS EWS TOU AIONOS.

So if you remove this (it is in a separate clause between commas) and just leave your PRO and for the sake of argument we say it is an adverb that modifies EIMI you are left with:

Before = PRO the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, Thou art

What this says is that God existed before the mountains existed and before the earth was formed, but says nothing about existing from the present time up to now.

That is not what you believe about God.

 

[Danno2281]

You have just provided another example that fits the description of both Smyth and Wallace. Do you know why a preposition is called by that name? It is a pre position, it comes before what it governs. EPI here governs the case of XRONOS. It is XRONON in the accusative. According to Wallace (and other Greek grammars) this has the sense of either a. Spatial: on, upon, to, up to, against or b. Temporal: for, over a period of.

So EPI governs the noun but modifies the verb so that it tells us the how, when, where, etc. That is exactly what I posted previously.

PRO always governs the noun in the genitive with the following: 1. Spatial: before, in front of, at 2. Temporal: before 3. Rank/Priority: before.

However a preposition does not have the ability to directly change a verbal aspect like PRIN does with EIMI in John 8:58. In fact that is a very special category, even for adverbs.

Once again though, a Trinitarian who wants to prove that Jesus is eternal from John 8:58 will avoid calling it a Present of Past Action Still in Progress (PPA) like the plague. Also, Ps 90:2 cannot be a PPA because it does not have an adverb for which to modify the verb at all.

Now, lets looks at Ps 90:2, and ignore the fact that PRO is not a preposition and pretend that it is a preposition. The following is the English Brenton LXX rendering:

LXE Psalm 90:2 {089:2} Before = PRO the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art.

Do you remember me posting that God is eternal in this verse because of the phrase “from age to age”? The Greek is APO TOU AIWNOS EWS TOU AIONOS.

So if you remove this (it is in a separate clause between commas) and just leave your PRO and for the sake of argument we say it is an adverb that modifies EIMI you are left with:

Before = PRO the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, Thou art

What this says is that God existed before the mountains existed and before the earth was formed, but says nothing about existing from the present time up to now.

That is not what you believe about God.

One more time for the particularly hard headed:You seem to have a serious problem with the word “before.” If I talk about “before the Europeans came to these shores,” that is an open ended statement. The only temporal considerarion is what follows “before.” In the example, the year 450 AD is included, and the year 5747 BC and any concept that antedates the mentioned tiime, “time immemorial.” “Before Abraham” is not temporally restrictive excep insofar as it does not include what comes after the “before.”
I already told you that this was an accusative of duration. It is a prepositional phrase - epi + chronon. You have said that such a prepositional phrase cannot be used temporally, that if it were used temporally the preposition would have been prefixed to the verb. Now, ONE MORE TIME, if it be not a prepositional phrase being used temporally, what is this prepositional phrase and what is its relationship ot the rest of this very brief sentence? Unless and until you can make sense of its function, you are only spinning your wheels and wasting my time.

 

[Dan_Parker]

One more time for the particularly hard headed:You seem to have a serious problem with the word “before.” If I talk about “before the Europeans came to these shores,” that is an open ended statement. The only temporal considerarion is what follows “before.” In the example, the year 450 AD is included, and the year 5747 BC and any concept that antedates the mentioned tiime, “time immemorial.” “Before Abraham” is not temporally restrictive excep insofar as it does not include what comes after the “before.”
I already told you that this was an accusative of duration. It is a prepositional phrase - epi + chronon. You have said that such a prepositional phrase cannot be used temporally, that if it were used temporally the preposition would have been prefixed to the verb. Now, ONE MORE TIME, if it be not a prepositional phrase being used temporally, what is this prepositional phrase and what is its relationship ot the rest of this very brief sentence? Unless and until you can make sense of its function, you are only spinning your wheels and wasting my time.

You misunderstand me. I don’t use the word “temporally” in my description of the use of the adverb. You did that and I corrected you. Remember Burton? You changed his wording from adverbially to temporally and I corrected you.

That does not mean the preposition cannot modify the verb temporally. It means you were confusing two entirely different things.

When a preposition modifies a verb temporally it can answer the question when, but it cannot take a present tense EIMI and change the verbal aspect to one which includes a past tense along with the present tense.

Do you understand the difference between a preposition that answers the question “when” and an adverb that changes the verbal aspect?

 

[Dan_Parker]

One more time for the particularly hard headed:You seem to have a serious problem with the word “before.” If I talk about “before the Europeans came to these shores,” that is an open ended statement. The only temporal considerarion is what follows “before.” In the example, the year 450 AD is included, and the year 5747 BC and any concept that antedates the mentioned tiime, “time immemorial.” “Before Abraham” is not temporally restrictive excep insofar as it does not include what comes after the “before.”
I already told you that this was an accusative of duration. It is a prepositional phrase - epi + chronon. You have said that such a prepositional phrase cannot be used temporally, that if it were used temporally the preposition would have been prefixed to the verb. Now, ONE MORE TIME, if it be not a prepositional phrase being used temporally, what is this prepositional phrase and what is its relationship ot the rest of this very brief sentence? Unless and until you can make sense of its function, you are only spinning your wheels and wasting my time.

I went back to see if I had used the verbiage to which you attribute me. According to you I said “You have said that such a prepositional phrase cannot be used temporally, that if it were used temporally the preposition would have been prefixed to the verb”

I don’t see that I said that. Now, I have advanced my understanding of the adverb during our discussion, so perhaps I can articulate this better than when we started, but I don’t see that I ever said that. Here is what I found and it is very consistent.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5835250&postcount=649
Danno, Danno, Danno. What are we going to do with you?

Please quote Burton accurately! He does not say “temporal clause” he says “an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time”!

Why is this significant? Because it is ADVERBS that modify verbs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5835388&postcount=651
Wallace in his exegetical grammar says that the preposition can modify a verb by answering the question of “when”, etc but that it governs the noun.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5836140&postcount=653
This information on the preposition does not change my view of John 1:1 at all. The preposition EN answers the question “when” but governs the noun ARXH (beginning). It is not an adverb here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5838075&postcount=657
However a preposition does not have the ability to directly change a verbal aspect like PRIN does with EIMI in John 8:58. In fact that is a very special category, even for adverbs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5839069&postcount=659
You misunderstand me. I don’t use the word “temporally” in my description of the use of the adverb. You did that and I corrected you. Remember Burton? You changed his wording from adverbially to temporally and I corrected you.

In reading the above I see something that I would change now that I have studied Wallace and Smyth and their use of terminology. I used the expression “modify” verbs when I should have said “govern” verbs. An adverb can modify a verb temporally by answering the question “when” but it cannot transform a present tense form into one that incorporates past time.

I asked you this question earlier for a reason. Would you please answer it?
Q. Do you understand the difference between a preposition that answers the question “when” and an adverb that changes the verbal aspect?

 

[Danno2281]

You misunderstand me. I don’t use the word “temporally” in my description of the use of the adverb. You did that and I corrected you. Remember Burton? You changed his wording from adverbially to temporally and I corrected you.

That does not mean the preposition cannot modify the verb temporally. It means you were confusing two entirely different things.
Really? Smyth:"When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’."

When a preposition modifies a verb temporally it can answer the question when, but it cannot take a present tense EIMI and change the verbal aspect to one which includes a past tense along with the present tense.

Do you understand the difference between a preposition that answers the question “when” and an adverb that changes the verbal aspect?

Do you understand the nature of an temporal adverb? Its function is to make more clear the meaning, in time,of the verb. Any “when” informs the meaning of the verb making it more specific, even adverbs like “always” that open rather than shut temporal doors.

I did not change Burton’s wording at all. Read what I wroteanno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ‘, This is, in Burton’s words: “accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases” I quoted Burton exactly. Do you see the words "past’, “duration”, “still in progress” these are temporal expressions, adverbniall expressions used temporally because they denote temporal ideas’
You wrote:“That does not mean the preposition cannot modify the verb temporally. It means you were confusing two entirely different things.”
Really? Smyth:“When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.”

These are mutually exclusive statements, Smith asserting that there is no prepositional phrase not prefixed to the verb that can be used as an adverbial phrase.
Dan:“When a preposition modifies a verb temporally it can answer the question when, but it cannot take a present tense EIMI and change the verbal aspect to one which includes a past tense along with the present tense.” Not fact, but opinion. Let us assume it.
According to Smyth only those prepositions attached to EIMI (or any other verb) could be used adverbially. And we get right back to En arche, which phrase cannot, of course have anything to do with time. Now, one more time, what is its function in the sentence?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Danno2281:
Do you understand the nature of an temporal adverb? Its function is to make more clear the meaning, in time,of the verb. Any “when” informs the meaning of the verb making it more specific, even adverbs like “always” that open rather than shut temporal doors.

I did not change Burton’s wording at all. Read what I wroteanno:Let’s look at a structure that indicates a temporal clause "from…to ‘, This is, in Burton’s words: “accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases” I quoted Burton exactly. Do you see the words "past’, “duration”, “still in progress” these are temporal expressions, adverbniall expressions used temporally because they denote temporal ideas’

Dan:
What you did was to apply what Burton wrote to a “temporal clause”, something that he did not do himself. You completed the sentence for Burton out of context with the grammatical feature he was discussing. Burton was discussing a particular syntax that only applies to an adverb and that alone. Ps 90:2 does not fit this description.

You wrote:“That does not mean the preposition cannot modify the verb temporally. It means you were confusing two entirely different things.”
**
Danno2281**
Really? Smyth:“When the preposition is not prefixed to the verb is has a closer connection to the noun and has ‘freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb’.”

I found Smyth online. Instead of quoting me quoting Smyth, lets look at the exact wording in context:

c. Gradually the preposition-adverb was brought into closer connection tither (1) with the verb, whence arose compounds such as APOKIPTHN, or

1. with the noun, the preposition-adverb having freed itself from its adverbial relation to the verb.

Danno2281
These are mutually exclusive statements, Smith asserting that there is no prepositional phrase not prefixed to the verb that can be used as an adverbial phrase.

Dan:
Smyth is not talking about a prepositional phrase here. He is speaking of the preposition. The term “preposition-adverb” refers to the form before the Koine period. When it is affixed to the verb it modifies the verb in Koine, but when it is not affixed to the verb it freed itself to the adverbial relation to the verb that it had in pre-Koine times.

Now the preposition only has an adverbial relation to the verb when it is prefixed to the verb. This is not the case in Ps 90:2.

Dan:“When a preposition modifies a verb temporally it can answer the question when, but it cannot take a present tense EIMI and change the verbal aspect to one which includes a past tense along with the present tense.” Not fact, but opinion. Let us assume it.
**
Danno2281**
According to Smyth only those prepositions attached to EIMI (or any other verb) could be used adverbially. And we get right back to En arche, which phrase cannot, of course have anything to do with time. Now, one more time, what is its function in the sentence?

Dan:
The preposition answers the question of “when” when it is used temporally as in John 1:1 and Ps 90:2. The preposition does not have any effect on the verbal aspect of EINAI (to be) in either verse as it does in John 8:58.

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.

 

[Danno2281]

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.