Ted Hoffman

I think Carr should apologize. I am upset about being misled.

Ben, FYI, some of us are looking forward to your comments regarding Fear and Loathing of Doherty's Use of Q: A Response to Chris Zeichman.

Ben C Smith

?

I already gave my comments. I promised to look for actual noncircular arguments for the relayering of Q. I found some. So I withdrew my remarks about there not being any arguments besides the circular one. I noted, IIRC, that there were in fact about 4 of them.

Ben.

Steven Carr

How was I to know that Wright produced nothing to back up his claim that Colossians 3 and 1 John 3 'put it' as a reappearance? 'Put it' implies that the text explicitly uses words for re-appear.

If Wright had been right, that would have refuted Doherty.

gurugeorge

[QUOTE=Rick Sumner;4571296]Indeed, compare and contrast:

Christ died for our sins, was buried, [and] was raised on the third day.

Steven Carr

I don't understand. Wright is a Greek scholar of great repute. He knows what the Greek word for appear is and what the Greek word for re-appear is.

Unless the word in the text really can mean both things, then no reputable Greek scholar would claim that both really are valid translations.

Amaleq13

I think you need to add "according to Scripture" at the end to be analogous to "never worn".

gurugeorge

Ben C Smith

Of course you understand. You were correct to question his translation.

Ben.

Gamera

Well, he finds it in the fact that terms like "hell" and "sin" are ambiguous in the Christian Scriptures, and their content was filled up by mediaeval theologians with an iconography that dominates our current understanding of them.

But it is fair to deconstruct the terms and attempt to understand what they would have meant to the authors and audience of the time, and further, it is fair to ask how their culture colored the meaning, and what the core meanings of the terms, brushing off that cultural specific patina, are for us today.

This is no different than we would do with any text from a past period that is meaningful to us today.

Gamera

While it is a bad literal translation of the term, isn't the sense in fact re-appear, and hence the literal translation is not as accurate as the less literal translation (as is often the case).

There are plenty of references in the epistles to "waiting" for Jesus, which implies a reappearance.

By the way, the semantic field of "appear" in English often includes "reappear."

If a friend comes over to your house, and leaves to get a pizza, and you're waiting for him to come back to start dinner, you might say "we're waiting for Joe to appear before we start," though the sense is reappear.

Of if a patient has a fever, and it goes away, and then comes back, it isn't incoherent for the nurse to tell the doctor, "a fever has appeared," even though the sense is "reappeared."

In short, a ven diagram of the semantic field of "appearance" includes a poriton of the semantic field of the word "reappearance"

Are you sure the Greek equivalent doesn't have this semantic scope?