Ferbie

“For to one….” Turns out the Greek word can be either a relative or demonstrative pronoun according to Strongs. Which it is in this particular case, I am uncertain. According to the dictionary, a relative pronoun refers to an antecedent, but an antecedent is a word, phrase or clause. If a word, it may or may not be a noun. On that basis, VP’s statement defining the action of a relative pronoun is incorrect. The result of any application of an incorrect rule is suspect to my way of thinking. Changing the word “one” to “that” of verse 8 also makes it sound more like a thing, as opposed to a person, which a lot of people believe. That is probably what he was trying to accomplish in part. For me, I definitely want to spend some time re-evaluating these verses on my own. In answer to your question, Rafael, a plain old pronoun would be such as “he” or “she.” A relative pronoun “introduces a relative clause and has reference to an antecedent.” Trust me, it’s much easier to understand from the dictionary where it also gives examples. But another question is how do relative pronouns function in Greek….? Thanks for taking the time to look that up, Xixar.

A-n-t-e-c-e-d-e-n-t. I said I could spell it. WRONG!!!!.

Hi Raf. And BTW thank you for your gracious anticedent remarks. I looked that word up in the dictionary and I now know what it means. I can even spell it. Interesting in the definition: “ The word, phrase, or clause to which a relative pronoun refers.” So we are NOT only talking nouns, folks, we are talking whole phrases and clauses. My Gawd, the things we learn. Raf, you gave me the answer. Thank you. I fought with that all day. Yep. I think this is a bonifide error. Mistake. Shouldn't have happened. But, probably not an accident. But, that is interpretive (sorry, couldn't help it).

I dunno. How about we start with as he (the man) wills (to believe)? The supposition was the pronoun refers to the nearest noun. Is that actually true? Does it actually make sense gramatically? In this verse the noun (Spirit) is taking the action. It divides severally. As WHO wills? There seems to be a noun doing the acting, and a noun being acted upon. The giver or the receiver? The noun taking the action, or the noun receiving? The owner fed the cats, giving each to them their own, as he wills. “He wills.” Which is it, the cats or the owner? To me, to say as the cats will is plain weird. But I’m not an English or Greek scholar. Just a dumb Okie. And, to me this issue isn’t interpretation. It is either or. Help me out here, Jerry B. I KNOW if you will read my post and think about it, you will see what I’m saying. I guess my point is, gramatical rules aren't interpretive (to the best of my knowledge). If they are, then there's no point in language. It is all ambiguous (sp?) and a complete waste of time. (Can't make any assertions because the medium negates that possibility because it is lacking in the capibility to be anything else because it is inherently.....indefinite). Sigh.

Following seem to me to be apparent errors, however, I will need help (lots) to nail them down… Session 12 (and I don’t still have a book, relying on memory). I Cor. 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts…. We are told to scratch out gifts because it is in italics. And it is true there is no Greek word here for it. However… The last verse: But covet earnestly the best gifts (NOT in italics)… Next to the last verse: Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? If it is a given that all who are born again have nine manifestations (no more, no less) then why am I to covet the best ones if I already have them???? And since apostles, etc., is also included in the list am I also an apostle? I also remember being taught that the diversities of tongues of 12:28 meant one person speaking several languages. Problem is the “divers kinds of tongues” of verse 10 is the same as verse 28 (genos). Also: Verse 11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. VP wants to say as he (the man) wills to believe. What if I said, “All the feeding was done by the same owner, feeding each cat his own as he will”. As each cat believed to be fed? Noooooooooooo….as the owner fed them. Also the word “severally” is idios, and “dividing” is used once elsewhere as in to give out an inheritance. Also: There are three “gift” ministries listed, not five. But nine manifestations, but that is a complete list. Huh????? How about…. Romans 12:4-8 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then GIFTS (not in italics) differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether PROPHESY, let us PROPHESY according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. There is NO WAY to get this section to jibe with session 12. Evidently VP needed non-gift and gift persons to set up his ‘kingdom” (ie leadership structure, ie then he could be the TEACHER, MOG, etc). I am sorry, if I’m going to go with “gift ministries” I have to say there are seven. Romans lists seven. But we all have them. But do we all have all seven? (LOL). No doubt this is only the tip of the iceburg for session 12……..