- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,14:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 30 2009,06:42) Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,13:37) Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,05:00) Paladin said: Quote What makes you think Wisdom is innactive? She actually is presented as a very active force in scripture. And she is personified in the proverbs and other scriptures. Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified.
God treats her as though she is a person in Gen 1:26 “Let us make…” But I do not pretend to be in the inner circle with God and wisdom. I offer only what is revealed in scripture, as proclaimed by wisdom herself, and God Himself.
Paladin,
Wisdom is depicted as a housewife. It simply means that God in His wisdom created all things. It is poetic literature man!Paladin said:
Quote Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified. Thank you! So proverbs 8-9 is NOT talking about an actual person who was “brought forth” and created with God.
Paladin said:
Quote God treats her as though she is a person in Gen 1:26 “Let us make…” Thank you again! God speaks of her as though she is a person. So Proverbs 8-9 does NOT say that an actual person was “brought forth” who created with God.
I think you are starting to get it
thinker
There you go again, twisting and perverting what I have said.I said wisdom is a person because wisdom testified she was brought forth and was with God in creation.
I said YOUR REMARKS about proverbs 8-9 (“Wisdom is depicted as…”) make her a personification.
Do try to entertain two coherent thoughts at one time.
As for whether Wisdom is a “Person” or not, how does that change anything? I could say “My brother saw me and my dog walking along the riverbank and he offered us a ride in his boat.” How does “us” make my dog a person?
If God brings forth wisdom, and includes her in the statement using “us” how does it make any difference whatsoever to you or me, whether he is addressin a person or simply his own offspring, for she was after all, brought forth from Elohim, WHATEVER her subsequent designation.
She most certainly WAS, under ANY description, included in the Gen 1:26 meaning of “us.”
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,13:37) As for whether Wisdom is a “Person” or not, how does that change anything? I could say “My brother saw me and my dog walking along the riverbank and he offered us a ride in his boat.” How does “us” make my dog a person? Your dog doesn't have your nature and create things with you does it?
WJ
The issue is about the use of “us,” not whether me and my dog create.Gen 1:26 controversy has ALWAYS been about the use and meaning of “us,” not what “us” was doing.
Remember the question?
(P)Quote
If God brings forth wisdom, and includes her in the statement using “us” how does it make any difference whatsoever to you or me, whether he is addressin a person or simply his own offspring, for she was after all, brought forth from Elohim, WHATEVER her subsequent designation.She most certainly WAS, under ANY description, included in the Gen 1:26 meaning of “us.”
Can't answer the question, so attack the messenger eh?
Hi PDThe “us” in context is speaking of “Our image” and cocreating with YHWH!
Wisdom has no “nature” and is simply present at creation because God contains all wisdom and knowledge.
Wisdom cannot be personified without a “person” to act on it!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 30 2009,07:25) Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,14:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 30 2009,06:42) Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,13:37) Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,05:00) Paladin said: Quote What makes you think Wisdom is innactive? She actually is presented as a very active force in scripture. And she is personified in the proverbs and other scriptures. Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified.
God treats her as though she is a person in Gen 1:26 “Let us make…” But I do not pretend to be in the inner circle with God and wisdom. I offer only what is revealed in scripture, as proclaimed by wisdom herself, and God Himself.
Paladin,
Wisdom is depicted as a housewife. It simply means that God in His wisdom created all things. It is poetic literature man!Paladin said:
Quote Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified. Thank you! So proverbs 8-9 is NOT talking about an actual person who was “brought forth” and created with God.
Paladin said:
Quote God treats her as though she is a person in Gen 1:26 “Let us make…” Thank you again! God speaks of her as though she is a person. So Proverbs 8-9 does NOT say that an actual person was “brought forth” who created with God.
I think you are starting to get it
thinker
There you go again, twisting and perverting what I have said.I said wisdom is a person because wisdom testified she was brought forth and was with God in creation.
I said YOUR REMARKS about proverbs 8-9 (“Wisdom is depicted as…”) make her a personification.
Do try to entertain two coherent thoughts at one time.
As for whether Wisdom is a “Person” or not, how does that change anything? I could say “My brother saw me and my dog walking along the riverbank and he offered us a ride in his boat.” How does “us” make my dog a person?
If God brings forth wisdom, and includes her in the statement using “us” how does it make any difference whatsoever to you or me, whether he is addressing a person or simply his own offspring, for she was after all, brought forth from Elohim, WHATEVER her subsequent designation.
She most certainly WAS, under ANY description, included in the Gen 1:26 meaning of “us.”
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,13:37) As for whether Wisdom is a “Person” or not, how does that change anything? I could say “My brother saw me and my dog walking along the riverbank and he offered us a ride in his boat.” How does “us” make my dog a person? Your dog doesn't have your nature and create things with you does it?
WJ
The issue is about the use of “us,” not whether me and my dog create.Gen 1:26 controversy has ALWAYS been about the use and meaning of “us,” not what “us” was doing.
Remember the question?
(P)Quote
If God brings forth wisdom, and includes her in the statement using “us” how does it make any difference whatsoever to you or me, whether he is addressin a person or simply his own offspring, for she was after all, brought forth from Elohim, WHATEVER her subsequent designation.She most certainly WAS, under ANY description, included in the Gen 1:26 meaning of “us.”
Can't answer the question, so attack the messenger eh?
Hi PDThe “us” in context is speaking of “Our image” and cocreating with YHWH!
Wisdom has no “nature” and is simply present at creation because God contains all wisdom and knowledge.
Wisdom cannot be personified without a “person” to act on it!
WJ
(P)
I got my information from Wisdom's revelation as expressed in Prov 8:22-31“The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
(WJ)
Quote
Wisdom has no “nature” and is simply present at creation because God contains all wisdom and knowledge.You got your information from WHERE?
Wisdom cannot be personified without a “person” to act on it!
[/quote]I do not remember a verse that discusses Wisdom's nature. Enlighten me. I do know that she was brought forth from elohim, and she probably has the nature of Elohim. Are you saying God has no nature?
(WJ)
Quote
Wisdom cannot be personified without a “person” to act on it!Does giving birth and b
ringing forth count as “acting on it?”Paladin,
At first you said that wisdom is NOT a person,Quote Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified Immediately afterwards you said,
Quote God treats her as though she is a person. But now you say this,
Quote I said wisdom is a person It is obvious that you are confused these days. You said that wisdom is NOT a person and that God treats her “as though” she is a person. Then you flip-flopped and said that wisdom is a person and blamed me for twisting your words. You are going to need a long break to gather yourself together before you even consider entering into a one on one debate with me.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,09:08) Paladin,
At first you said that wisdom is NOT a person,Quote Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified Immediately afterwards you said,
Quote God treats her as though she is a person. But now you say this,
Quote I said wisdom is a person It is obvious that you are confused these days. You said that wisdom is NOT a person and that God treats her “as though” she is a person. Then you flip-flopped and said that wisdom is a person and blamed me for twisting your words. You are going to need a long break to gather yourself together before you even consider entering into a one on one debate with me.
thinker
You are not focussed enough on what my post actually says, to have an intelligent discussion on the issues raised therein.(thinker)
Quote Paladin,
At first you said that wisdom is NOT a person,Quote Does that make her a person? no! That makes her personified Immediately afterwards you said,
Quote God treats her as though she is a person. But now you say this,
Quote I said wisdom is a person It is obvious that you are confused these days. You said that wisdom is NOT a person and that God treats her “as though” she is a person. Then you flip-flopped and said that wisdom is a person and blamed me for twisting your words.
First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified.
One does not contradict the other, as the contextual considerations are not the same, neither the results. It might help, when you quote my post, that you include whatever part of the conversation lead to the conclusion you are quoting.
(thinker)
Quote You are going to need a long break to gather yourself together before you even consider entering into a one on one debate with me. thinker Ha! Ha! Ha!
Is that supposed to make me quiver? Hey, if you want out you don't have to make up excuses. Just say no! Like I said, my ego don't need stroked.Paladin said:
Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. Paladin,
I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. It is you who is dividing it into “aspects.” You tried to make the case that wisdom was a person that was given birth and then participated in creation. I pointed out to you that wisdom is depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. ans so your conclusions are invalid. That's all. This is so typical of you to fail to own up to the things you say. I caught you in a contradiction. Instead of saying “You got me”, you tried to make yourself appear as the misunderstood victim. You contradicted yourself so own up to it. First you said that wisdom was not a person and then you flip-flopped and said it is a person.Paladin said:
Quote Hey, if you want out you don't have to make up excuses. Just say no! Like I said, my ego don't need stroked. It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49) Paladin said: Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. Paladin,
I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. It is you who is dividing it into “aspects.” You tried to make the case that wisdom was a person that was given birth and then participated in creation. I pointed out to you that wisdom is depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. ans so your conclusions are invalid. That's all. This is so typical of you to fail to own up to the things you say. I caught you in a contradiction. Instead of saying “You got me”, you tried to make yourself appear as the misunderstood victim. You contradicted yourself so own up to it. First you said that wisdom was not a person and then you flip-flopped and said it is a person.Paladin said:
Quote Hey, if you want out you don't have to make up excuses. Just say no! Like I said, my ego don't need stroked. It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents.
thinker
You did not ask me if wisdom was a person. You asked me if Prov 8-9 makes wisdom a person. I said no, that (prov 8-9) makes wisdom personified.Prov 8:22-31 makes wisdom a person.
Gen 1:26 makes wisdom a person.
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49) Paladin said: Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. Paladin,
I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. It is you who is dividing it into “aspects.” You tried to make the case that wisdom was a person that was given birth and then participated in creation. I pointed out to you that wisdom is depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. ans so your conclusions are invalid. That's all. This is so typical of you to fail to own up to the things you say. I caught you in a contradiction. Instead of saying “You got me”, you tried to make yourself appear as the misunderstood victim. You contradicted yourself so own up to it. First you said that wisdom was not a person and then you flip-flopped and said it is a person.Paladin said:
Quote Hey, if you want out you don't have to make up excuses. Just say no! Like I said, my ego don't need stroked. It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents.
thinker
I called it an aspect, I did not say YOU called it an aspect.Consider this; the Debate begins next week.
Paladin's Major premise
A) Monothiesm is taught in the O.T. scriptures.Paladin's Minor premise
B) Jesus had a beginningPaladin's conclusion
C) consequence of A & B is that Jesus is not God.Structure of the debate
Being that I would be taking the side of affirming the topic (that yes Monothiesm is taught in the scriptures) and you are negating, I would take the first “speech.” Using normal debate structures in competitive philosophical debate, the debate would look like this –Affirmative constructive (max of 5,000 words) – this is where the affirmative can build his case for his belief
Negative constructive (max of 7,000 words) – this is where the negative can refute the affirmative as well as build his case for his belief
Affirmative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – where the affirmative can respond to and defend his case
Negative rebuttal (max of 4,000 words) – negative does the same and makes closing comments
Affirmative rebuttal (max of 3,000 words) – finishes his defense and makes closing comments
Ethics
Obviously the debate would be moderated and thus any perceived ad hominem attacks would be reported. A verified ad hominem attack would result in a warning the first two times, with the third time disqualifying the person from the debate.Examples of ad hominem would be, “Any “right thinking” Christian would see this,” “You're just redefining scriptures to build your theology.,” etc.
The posting of responses should be timely. This would mean, for our case, SOME response within a week and for the rebuttals as that entails mostly a repeat of points offered in affirming arguments.
What do you think?
Paladin said:
Quote You did not ask me if wisdom was a person. You asked me if Prov 8-9 makes wisdom a person. I said no, that (prov 8-9) makes wisdom personified. Prov 8:22-31 makes wisdom a person.
Gen 1:26 makes wisdom a person.
Prove what you say.
thinker
Paladin said:
Quote I called it an aspect, I did not say YOU called it an aspect. I did not say that you said I called it an “aspect.”
First you said:
Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. I replied:
Quote I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,11:04) Paladin said: Quote I called it an aspect, I did not say YOU called it an aspect. I did not say that you said I called it an “aspect.”
First you said:
Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. I replied:
Quote I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. thinker
I have asked you four times if you agree with the rules I have proferred.Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object.
Quote (Paladin @ June 30 2009,16:35) Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,11:04) Paladin said: Quote I called it an aspect, I did not say YOU called it an aspect. I did not say that you said I called it an “aspect.”
First you said:
Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. I replied:
Quote I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. thinker
I have asked you four times if you agree with the rules I have proferred.Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object.
Hi PDI think he has already answered you!
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49) It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents. thinker
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2009,09:30) Quote (Paladin @ June 30 2009,16:35) Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,11:04) Paladin said: Quote I called it an aspect, I did not say YOU called it an aspect. I did not say that you said I called it an “aspect.”
First you said:
Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. I replied:
Quote I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. thinker
I have asked you four times if you agree with the rules I have proferred.Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object.
Hi PDI think he has already answered you!
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49) It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents. thinker
Blessings WJ
Not quite.I first suggested some rules, with which he agreed, but he suggested word count limitation, so I revisited the rules.
What I came up with is slightly different, and I do think he should look at it to see if it is changed too radically for his taste.
Just wanting to be FAIR.
I offer a new format with time limits and wordcount. If he wants a bigger or lesser word count, I want him to express what his desires are.
Quote (thethinker @ June 30 2009,10:49) Paladin said: Quote First of all, I was talking about one aspect of the person, Wisdom. Then YOU introduced another aspect, Prov 8-9, which I said does not prove she is a person, it proves she is personified. Paladin,
I did not introduce another so called “aspect” of wisdom. It is you who is dividing it into “aspects.” You tried to make the case that wisdom was a person that was given birth and then participated in creation. I pointed out to you that wisdom is depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. ans so your conclusions are invalid. That's all. This is so typical of you to fail to own up to the things you say. I caught you in a contradiction. Instead of saying “You got me”, you tried to make yourself appear as the misunderstood victim. You contradicted yourself so own up to it. First you said that wisdom was not a person and then you flip-flopped and said it is a person.Paladin said:
Quote Hey, if you want out you don't have to make up excuses. Just say no! Like I said, my ego don't need stroked. It was you who said that our debating ANYTHING is uncertain. I DON'T WANT OUT! Is this clear enough? I would like to go one on one without others interrupting and convoluding things with their tangents.
thinker
I called it an aspect. You don't even have to agree that is what it is.I will call it what I want. I understand what “aspect” means and how to apply it. You can call it what you want.
What YOU call “depicted as a housewife” I call “introduced another aspect.” I did not chide you for your characterization as a “depiction” why do you get all bent out of shape over my “aspect?”
I have not “flip-flopped” over anything, as you suggest. I respond to two different apsects of wisdom, as presented in YOUR post's response to mine. Try to keep up.
Paladin said:
Quote I called it an aspect. You don't even have to agree that is what it is. I will call it what I want. I understand what “aspect” means and how to apply it. You can call it what you want.
What YOU call “depicted as a housewife” I call “introduced another aspect.” I did not chide you for your characterization as a “depiction” why do you get all bent out of shape over my “aspect?”
I have not “flip-flopped” over anything, as you suggest. I respond to two different apsects of wisdom, as presented in YOUR post's response to mine. Try to keep up.
Paladin,
Come on man! I have said all along that wisdom was depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. I didn't introduce different “aspects” of wisdom. I merely brought to your attention something you should have seen but which you didn't. I really don't know what you are talking about and I am getting quite irritated with you. You have charged me for twisting what you have said. Yet in the past you have said this,Quote I just lose it from frustration of my own inability to get my point across (Proper Decorum thread) You have confessed your own inability to get your point across at least two times since you have been here. But when it is pointed out to you that you have contradicted yourself you accuse others of misrepresenting you. Go back and read the posts. You said that wisdom is not a person but is only personified. Then you said that wisdom is a person. Why can't you just own up to it?
About the debate you said this,
Quote Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object. WJ pointed out to you that I have replied to you. It is clear that you have comprehension and maybe even some memory problems. Please just set it up with t8 and stop talking about it! Either set it up with t8 and notify me or drop it!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23) Paladin said: Quote I called it an aspect. You don't even have to agree that is what it is. I will call it what I want. I understand what “aspect” means and how to apply it. You can call it what you want.
What YOU call “depicted as a housewife” I call “introduced another aspect.” I did not chide you for your characterization as a “depiction” why do you get all bent out of shape over my “aspect?”
I have not “flip-flopped” over anything, as you suggest. I respond to two different apsects of wisdom, as presented in YOUR post's response to mine. Try to keep up.
Paladin,
Come on man! I have said all along that wisdom was depicted as a housewife in chapters 8-9. I didn't introduce different “aspects” of wisdom. I merely brought to your attention something you should have seen but which you didn't. I really don't know what you are talking about and I am getting quite irritated with you. You have charged me for twisting what you have said. Yet in the past you have said this,Quote I just lose it from frustration of my own inability to get my point across (Proper Decorum thread) You have confessed your own inability to get your point across at least two times since you have been here. But when it is pointed out to you that you have contradicted yourself you accuse others of misrepresenting you. Go back and read the posts. You said that wisdom is not a person but is only personified. Then you said that wisdom is a person. Why can't you just own up to it?
About the debate you said this,
Quote Why do you not respond? I would like to get it set up with admin. I will go ahead and set it up if I do not hear from you, unless you object. WJ pointed out to you that I have replied to you. It is clear that you have comprehension and maybe even some memory problems. Please just set it up with t8 and stop talking about it! Either set it up with t8 and notify me or drop it!
thinker
I said wisdom is a person as shown in Prov 8:22-31; and when you said she is “depicted as a housewife” in prov 8-9, I said that is a personification.I said nothing about it changing anything in Prov 8:22-31.
Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53) Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23) Quote set it up with t8 Consider yourself notified.
Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?thinker
Paladin said:
Quote I said wisdom is a person as shown in Prov 8:22-31; and when you said she is “depicted as a housewife” in prov 8-9, I said that is a personification. Show that this is how it happened.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 02 2009,06:58) Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53) Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23) Quote set it up with t8 Consider yourself notified.
Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?thinker
I utilize
FOR TRI-LINGUAL STUDIES1) THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE; HEBREW, GREEK, ENGLISH; Hendrickson
2) THE NIV TRIGLOT OLD TESTAMENT; Kohlenberger
FOR GREEK OLD TESTAMENT
3) ANALYTICAL LEXICON TO THE SEPTUAGINT; Bernard a. Taylor
4) GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK;Hendrickson
5) A GREEK – ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE SEPTUAGINT; J. LUST, E. EYNIKEL, K. HAUSPIE; Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft 1992
6) A GRAMMAR OF SEPTUAGINT GREEK; Conybeare & Stock
7) A HANDY CONCORDANCE OF THE SEPTUAGINT; Bagster
8) SEPTUAGINT GREEK AND ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster
FOR HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
9) ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLE HISTORY; Free
10) THE LIFE AND WORKS OF JOSEPHUS; Translated by Whiston
11) THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; Ernst Wurthwein; translated by Erroll F. Rhodes
12) ANALYTICAL HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON; Bagster
13) ENGLISHMAN,S HEBREW AND CHALDEE CONCORDANCE; OLD TESTAMENT; Bagster
14) GESENIUS' HEBREW GRAMMAR; Edited & Enlarged by; E. Kautzsch
15) CHAPTER AND VERSE; Theophilus Book, First, Second, and Third Editions; Privately Published
16) CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES; Theophilus Book; Privately Published
17) ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE; Zondervan
18) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; A.T. Robertson
19) ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON; Zondervan
20) ANALYTICAL GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker
21) THE ZONDERMAN PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH
22) THE RSV INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT
23) THE INTERLINEAR KJV-NIV PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH
24) ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Friberg, Friberg, Miller
25) THE ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; WIGRAM
26) STRONGEST STRONG'S EXHASTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE
27) THE NEW TESTAMENT OCTAPLA; Luther A. Weigle
28) NEW TESTAMENT SURVEY; Tenny
29) BASICS OF BIBLICAL GREEK GRAMMAR; Bill Mounce
30) A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS; The International Council of Religious Education
31) ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; Baker Book House; Vol 1 – Lex. focus; vol 2 – gram. focus
32) AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS; W.E.Vine
33) ITS STILL GREEK TO ME; Black
34) LEARN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Dobson
35) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; Hudson
36) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT; (3RD Ed) UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES
37) NEW TESTAMENT GREEK PRIMER; Zondervan
38) THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT; Hodges & Farstad
FOR STUDIES IN MEANING OF WORDS ACROSS LANGUAGES
39) EXTINCT LANGUAGES; Johannes Friedrich
40) HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES; Robert H. Pfeiffer
FOR STUDIES IN THE LATIN TESTAMENT
41) NOVUM TESTAMENTUM – Graece et Latine; Nestle – Aland
FOR STUDIES IN THE TEXT, LANGUAGE, AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
42) NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM; David Alan Black
43) LINGUISTICS FOR STUDENTS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK; BLACK
44) PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION; Louis Berkhof
45) ANTE-NICENE FATHERS; 10 Volumes; American Edition; Hendrickson Publishers
FOR STUDIES OF THE ATHIESTIC PERSPECTIVE
46) ATHEISM, THE CASE AGAINST GOD; George H. Smith
47) ATHEIST UNIVERSE; The thinking person's answer to Christian Fundamentalism; David Mills
48) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GOD; Edited by Michael Martin & Ricki Monnier; anthology
FOR STUDIES IN THE MEANING OF WORDS IN ENGLISH
49) NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY; Webster
50) ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND COMPOSITION; Warriner (Revised Edition)
FOR COMPARATIVE STUDIES INTO THE HEBREW MIND
51) THE HEBREW/ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT; The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures
FOR STUDIES OF THE TRINITARIAN AUTHORS
52) IS GOD A TRINITY? David Kemball-Cook
53) THE TRINITY; Bickersteth
54) WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY; Bowman
55) OUR TRIUNE GOD;Peter Toon
56) GOD IN THREE PERSONS; Millard J. Erickson
57) THE TIMELESS TRINITY, For The Ceaseless Centuries; Lanier
FOR UNDERSTANDING THE HOLY SPIRIT
58) THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; CAMP
Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,14:58) Quote (Paladin @ July 02 2009,01:53) Quote (thethinker @ July 01 2009,11:23) Quote set it up with t8 Consider yourself notified.
Great! Will you agree to providing the sources we each use for the biblical languages for the sake of those who want to verify what we say?thinker
Hi JackPlagerism should also be a reason for disqualification!
IMOWJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
