Featured Study of a Prepositional Phrase

One of JOJ hobby horses is to discredit lexicons other than his own. My definition was very similar to several found on line. He offered nothing authoritative that differed.

Again his fiction that word study based on English versions of exhaustive concordances, lexicons, bible dictionaries, commentaries are not worthwhile is hogwash.

I certainly reject absolute falsehoods like this. Did I not agree when you pointed out my error with phileo? Yes.

Explain what? Your nonsense?

Again JOJ simply offers yet another logical fallacy, attacking my credentials, rather than what I say. And yet again, no alternate view of the usages of "dia" has been offered. Just another "taint so" post, devoid of any actual contrary information on the subject.

 

While presenting accurate information of prepositions in general, this is simply an off topic post aimed at getting something right.

1) Did I say "dia" has a range of meanings? Yes.

2) Did I say we determine which of a Greek word's possible meaning by looking at usage in context? Yes.

3) Did the post mention or describe any meaning of "dia" not addressed in the OP? Nope

 

"Through faith" is a key phrase in scripture. Pay no attention to those who seek to avoid its study.

If you enter a room through a door, you go enter the door first, you go through the door first and you exit the door also before you enter the room. Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, etc.

 

You are correct, I did not mean mathematical logic, but semantic logic. When a person says "if not "A" then not "B" (the literal meaning of the construction, they are not stating a mathematical equation, they are equating the non-validly of "A" and "B". Logically, this can be understood to mean "if this is so, then that is so.

In our verse, if we are "A - not justified by the Law" then we are "B -justified by Jesus" are our "if this, then that" components. And again "but" works without all the mind boggling extraneous fly specks.

 

Folks, he questions my credentials but that is not an argument against the man. Yeah.

He has not said anything that differs from the OP definition of "dia."

He said I always reject his input, but then admitted I accepted it. But then he said I disregarded it? Yet another fiction, I made a stab at revising "philo" to the correct "phileo" throughout my following posts.

I did not just say your posted positions were nonsense, I addressed them and presented evidence that your views were nonsense.

1) It was nonsense to say I always reject your views.
2) It was nonsense to suggest the definition presented in the OP was unsound. As it is very much like Strong's and Thayer's renderings.
3) Here is what JOJ said was not an attack on me:

 

Hi JOJ, questioning a persons credentials rather than addressing the person's views is a personal attack.

"Through faith" is a key phrase in scripture. Pay no attention to those who seek to avoid its study.

If you enter a room through a door, you enter the door first, you go through the door first and you exit the door also before you enter the room. Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, before reaching the grace in which we stand. But just what is the "faith" that provides access to saving grace? Our profession of faith, no matter how flawed, or superficial? Or is it only the faith God has credited as righteousness?

Food for thought folks.

 

Arguments from personal incredulity are without merit.

Please Mr. Rippon, do not strain yourself trying to explain basic English, you seem unable to comprehend that if we enter a room through a door, we went through the door before we entered the room. So simple a cave man could understand it.

Thus "through faith" teaches faith before salvation, before justification, before regeneration, before reaching the grace in which we stand. But just what is the "faith" that provides access to saving grace? Our profession of faith, no matter how flawed, or superficial? Or is it only the faith God has credited as righteousness?

 

In this very abbreviated study, lets boil this all down using just one verses, Galatians 2:16.. Here is how the NASB95 renders our verse:

“ nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Note that the translation indicates the idea that “through faith in Christ Jesus” is our faith toward Christ, i.e. faith in Christ. In this usage, we see that “dia” is followed by three nouns in the genitive case, faith, Jesus and Christ. Many translations render it “through faith in Jesus Christ” but the NET comes down of the side as a subjective genitive, i.e. the faith in view is Christ’s.

So if we translate “dia” as “by means of” and then translate as a subjective genitive, we get “by means of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness.” So we are justified by means of the precious blood of Christ rather than by our faith in the precious blood of Christ. But, you might say, the very verse says we are justified “by faith in Christ.” Not if we make a similar translation decision that if the preposition “ek” (out) when used to show source or origin with genitive, i.e. translated as “by,” the phrase could be translated as “by Christ’s faithfulness.” Again the idea is the source of our justification is the precious blood of Christ.

When Christ died on the cross, covered with His own blood, He became the propitiation for the whole world, and access to that grace is granted by God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness. Knowing this even we have believed into Christ.

Are we justified when we profess our faith, or when God credits our faith as righteousness. Thus justification occurs when God puts us into Christ spiritually and we undergo the circumcision of Christ.

Just read Romans 4:4-5 folks. The verse does not say we are credited as righteousness, it says our faith is credited as righteousness. And based on God accepting our faith in the truth, He sets us apart spiritually in Christ.

LOL, Not in Christ means not in Christ. Good grief. And when we were NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT in Christ we were dead in our sins. When we are put in Christ we are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5.

 

Preserving Exegetical Possibilities

"A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text.

Blurring the line between translation and interpretation regularly diminishes the full exegetical potential of the text.

The real usefulness of these hybrids [Dynamic Equivalent Translations that blur the line between translation and interpretation] is paradoxically not as a translation (where they are untrustworthy as a window to the original text) but as a commentary. This is how I use them. Their virtue as commentaries is their thoroughness. There is not a single verse in the Bible that is left untouched. When I am faced with a difficult text, I often consult dynamic equivalent Bibles—not as a translation but as a gloss or commentary on a difficult passage." [Except for the bracked insertion and emphasis added by bolded words, the quotes are from Dr. Ryken's book.]

 

More logical fallacies from the one who seems to have no background or qualification in bible study, attacking not the positions but the qualifications of Dr. Ryken. Go figure.