End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

No it says "Logical Connective". You are confusing what you see. You are looking at the links to the Lexicons that give a brief description of the word and how it CAN be translated. But the Aparatus labels it a connective.


And YOU are denying what you DO see . Here, let's try it again: "moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next" (there's absolutely nothing in the ellipsis above - just the way they put it). I am not "confusing" anything - I read it just fine (as I already explained).

You keep leaving out "AND" as well as the fact those Lexicons say when it's a continuation explanation de is translated AND or is not translated at all. Why is that. What Lexicon are you quoting?



The evidence I presented says when it's a connective with the idea of explaining the word AND is used or the word is just not translated at all. So apparently the translation you questioned that said "AND" is asserting it's connective and explaining as are several other translations I can list.


So? What's your point? I can list just as many translations as you can? Paul is clearly appending another thought "on top of" his thought in v. 34 - deny it until doomsday - it will still be there when you're finished !

Are you serious with "What's your point?" when it's staring you right the face? I've already told you the point and I will have to do it again I see.

The POINT is when you argued "de" means the two verses are NOT a continuation of the topic I can present evidence that is not always the case with "de" and that the Lexicons and the translations I provided showed that many Greek Authorities disagree with you by translating "de" as "AND" or not even translating it at all.


So again the point is when you argue "it's X", I have my own sources that say it's not.

And I have my own grammatical sources (as well as your own ) that equally say it IS - Now what?

The sources I posted did NOT say you are right. The sources I gave merely say either view is a possibility. I don't know how you can miss that over and over. Seriously.



When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated.


And then there is the source I quoted which specifically stated that this term is best translated as "Moreover" - not to re-mention how the NASB translates the conjunction. Or, how about we revisit your own source from Zodhiates - who says that most frequently the conjunction introduces a new thing!? Amazing how you can't (or won't) see this ?

Yes and what was your source? What Lexicon was it?

BTW I have no problems admitting you can find a translation to translate it your way. All that proves is your idea is a consideration but not an absolute.. We can revisit zodhaites as long as you are honest enough to read the WHOLE thing and not ... out what parts you don't agree with and blissfully pretend they never existed

Here is what Zodhaites REALLY said

dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Generally it has the meaning of but, and, or also, namely.

Notice that again "Or simply CONTINUATIVE or EXPLANATORY"

See he gives examples

(II) Continuative, meaning but, now, and, also, and the like.

(A) Generally and after introducing a new paragraph or sentence (Mat_1:18; Mat_2:9; Mat_3:1; Mar_16:9; Luk_12:11, Luk_12:16; Luk_13:6, Luk_13:10; Luk_15:11, Luk_15:17; Act_6:1-2, Act_6:8-9; Act_9:7-8; 1Co_14:1; 1Co_15:17; 1Co_16:1). In this way it is sometimes emphatic, especially in interrogative clauses (2Co_6:14-16; Gal_4:20, "I could wish indeed" [a.t.]).

(B) Where it takes up and carries on a thought which had been interrupted, meaning then, therefore (Mat_6:7; Joh_15:26; Rom_5:8; 2Co_10:2; Jam_2:15). Also consequentially after ei (G1487), if, for epeí (G1893), seeing that, since (Act_11:17).

(C) As marking something added by way of explanation or example meaning but, and, namely, e.g., to wit (Mar_4:37, "and the waves," meaning so that the waves; Mar_16:8, "trembling also seized them" [a.t.]; Joh_6:10, "Now there was [or there being] much grass"; Act_23:13; Rom_3:22; 1Co_10:11; 1Co_15:56).

At this point it's clear you are going to ... out everything that you disagree with. I'm merely doing this so the others can see how these words are or can be used





2. copulative,
a. in explanatory clauses, ξυνέβησαν .. τὰ μακρὰ τείχη ἑλεῖν (ἦν δὲ σταδίων μάλιστα ὀκτώ) Th.4.66, cf. Il.7.48: when a Subst. is folld. by words in apposition, Ἀρισταγόρῃ τῷ Μιλησίῳ, δούλῳ δὲ ἡμετέρῳ Hdt.7.8.β ́; μήτηρ βασιλέως βασίλεια δʼ ἐμή A.Pers.152; so in answers, διπλᾶ λέγειν.—Answ. διπλᾶ δʼ ὁρᾶν Id.Th.974.


Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (371). Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Hmmm, wonder what the other definition Liddell & Scott gave (noticed that you only appealed to the "copulative" force - hmmmm)? And, even the copulative carries the meaning of "moreover" or "on top of" which is my whole point!

Yes all that shows is what I have already asserted, de does not have ONE meaning. You can cry to the cows come home that "de" means X but the fact is I have proven it means MORE than what you originally argued it does. Here LS show that it can be an explanatory clause which also agrees with the other Authorities I posted.

I repeat, given the context it seems that Paul is explaining his initial point about keeping silent in the church. Second I know that several Scholars agree by the way they translated "de" or left it untranslated (according to the Lexicon use of "de")

KJV "And'
ESV untranslated
NET Untranslated
BBE "And"
CEV Untranslated
GNB Untranslated
ISV Untranslated
RSV Untranslated
WEB Untranslated

And even "But" does not disagree with explanatory. Like if I asked you "Did you go fishing?" And you can answer "Yes I did BUT I did not catch anything"




1161. δέ dĕ, deh; a prim. particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.:—also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English].


Hmmmmm .

Yes I noticed you see ONLY that word and ignore the others


Strong, J. (2009). Vol. 1: A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (21). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

The context clearly is Paul continuing to explain what was said before.


Yes, & in doing so he appends another thought onto his previous thought in v. 34 as evidenced by his usage of this conjunction ! Exactly the point!

He explains it. Exactly YOUR point yes but not THE Point.



Nope


Yep & the grammar of the text says so (even your own source) - you just don't like it!

No the grammar and text and MY Sources support that it is NOT absolutely the way YOU say it has to be but can instead support my view that it should be translated AND or not be translated at all as an explanatory clause. That is exactly what the sources I posted said



I'll stick to what I have on my Logos.


Yea' - Imagine that !


Yeah, do you blame me when your offer is "Helps"?

Seriously? Can you imagine two great Debaters up on stage. One is using Logos or Bible works and the other is using the Freebie "Bible Helps"? Yeah that will go over real well