Word of Faith - a Look at what the Bible says!

[bluto]

Before I respond to this post wanderer can you please tell me if you read every word from the following site? MAKING SENSE OF SICKNESS AND TERMINAL ILLNESS

If so can you please tell me what your objections are for the reasons that God sometimes uses sickness not only for His glory but for various other reasons as explained in the article.

Now, it would be nice if you could please site your sources as to where you get your information. I'm not talking about you using Strong's Lexicon, I'm talking about who gave you the reason for Paul's throne in the flesh? The truth be known there is not one person alive that knows for an absolutel certaintly what it is. We do have some pretty good clues in the scriptures from the Apostle's own words that help us out.

Mainly from 2 Corinthians 12:7-8 for starters. (And yes, I know it was mentioned in the article you provided) but the conclusion which is what was said here: "Paul’s thorn was the constant persecution and opposition he faced where ever he went." does not "jive" with the context. It could be said that the problem Paul had he alluded to at Galatians 4:13,14, "but you know it was a BODILY ILLNESS that I preached the gospel to you the first time, vs14, and that whcih was a trial to you in my BODILY CONDITION you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself."

As you can see we do not know exactly what the condition was as it related to the thron. However, it was a bodily illness/condition in which the Apostle aked three times to be delivered/healed and God did not do it. In fact Paul himself says that the healing did not come in order for him to be humble according to 2 Corinthians 12:7.

So what do we have? We have Paul seeing revelations, which probably affected his eyesight. And remember at Acts 9:3 Paul was blinded for three days on the road to Damascus by Jesus Christ. And as I think about it Jesus said words to the affect that Paul will know what it's like to suffer as a Christian. Also Paul said at Galatians 4:15, "For I bear witness, that if possible, yho would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me." Bottom line, Paul had physical problems and God did not heal him but told him His grace is sufficient enough for him to "adapt, overcome and imporvise if need be. This is a Marine saying that I learned and am applying it to Paul.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Bumped for wanderer!

 

[Angela53510]

and last how could the clothing, the handkerchiefs of a constantly sick man heal the sick. you can't say it, you don't have the scriptural support no matter how hard you try and to twist it to another context.

…11God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, 12so thatevenhandkerchiefsandapronsthat had touched himwere takentothesick,andthediseasesandevilspiritsleftthem.

I just read this in my daily read through the bible, yesterday. I always emphasize the importance of reading the Bible from cover to cover. It is from that reading, we learn context, but more important, God uses it to help us grow. The Word is powerful, why would people not want to read it? A mystery to me! (Not necessarily speaking of you, wanderer, just anyone who is reading this post, and hoping people will start in January to read through the Bible every day, the OT and NT!

Also, it is VERY important to me, that you not just post a verse, but also the chapter and book. I knew this was in Acts, but since I read three chapters of the NT every day, I had to look up the Scripture to find the chapter. I think sometimes you are in a real rush, when you post things, Wanderer. I know that is partly enthusiasm, but also, maybe ADHD or something? Just thinking aloud. If the shoe fits, wear it, if not, cast it aside. And if ADHD, why have you not been healed of it? Or maybe, you have never been taught to edit? Re-read every post, before and after you post. You will find most errors (although not that transposition error I did above, I admit!)

As for the lack of spaces?? What is that about? Lucky I could read verse 11.

First, context.

"And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.”14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this.15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?”16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.17 And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.19 And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.20 So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily." Acts 19:11-20

Great piece of Scripture! I wonder why this is important? Is it because of the clothing, or the faith? Or, if we look at the rest of the passage, we find several important lessons.

1. Jewish exorcists tried to imitate Paul's closeness to Christ, and were badly surprised with what sounds like a psychotic and possessed man actually hurting them. So beware, if you are not Paul, or at least walking with Jesus as close as Paul, then do not try this at home! Seriously though, just because it happened to Paul, and used as a object lesson, doesn't mean it applies to today. If this was something we could all do, then it would have happened more than once, and probably Jesus would have done it (the hem of the bleeding woman's garment was about Jesus' power going out, not the actual clothing!). It would appear in many places, and many people doing it. Instead, it appears in context for people to beware if they try such things. Do not make a doctrine about clothing healing people if it only appears in one place, because that is bad hermeneutics!

2. Because the exorcists were exposed, those who practiced magic, had a very important lesson about dealing with the devil, as the sons of Sceva did. In fact, they burned their magic books to the tun of 50 thousand pieces of silver, and "THE WORK OF THE LORD CONTINUED TO INCREASE AND MIGHTLY PREVAIL." v. 19

So the work of the Lord was for people to repent of the sins of witchcraft and magic. What a healing and wonderful time for the church at Ephesus. And as the book of Acts and elsewhere demonstrate, the past problems with the priestesses of Artemis and the silversmiths who made their living making silver idols of that goddess, this incident with Paul healing people with clothing, and people trying to imitate this gift, was an incredible witness to believers in that church to repent of their sins - confessing - important word!

"And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices." Acts 19:17-18

What an important lesson for today!

 

[wanderer6059]

So besides Thayer being totally old and outdated, by the discovery of numerous papryi he he didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy, and used commentaries of non-believers.

"Rather unfortunately, Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete quickly as Gustav Adolf Deissmann's work with the Egyptian papyri was soon to revolutionize New Testament and Koine Greek Lexicography with the publication of his Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity published in 1901 (2nd edition 1909) and also Light from the Ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. These books and similar ones that followed helped confirm and sometimes correct inadequate definitions of many words in the Greek New Testament. With this new and valuable information for studying the Greek of the New Testament, Thayer's Lexicon became a victim of history, being published less than a decade before this papyri revolution.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer

So no, we won't be discussing what Thayer's Lexcon says. Over 126 years old, and obsolete before it was ever used. Why? Because of WRONG DEFINITIONS! No reputable seminary ever uses Thayer's. Well, unless they want to prove something which isn't true!

no, because of definitions of classical Greek, and the oldest manuscripts.

ταῖς ἀσθενείαις as it was written and used has its meaning in the word weakness, not sickness. KJV is old but it is still one of the closets translations to the original, and not to mention that you git the definition from "not just the word like you said. but the context of the writing that i thoroughly laid out.

not to mention that your copy and past from wiki. because if you study he did provid a substantial new perspective on the social level of the Christian groups in his work. That perspective can now be seen to be distorted partly by his own situation in early twentieth-century Germany and his early links with the National Social Alliance. his views of the nature of the Greek of the Bible were largely set aside by a renewed and exaggerated assertion of the Semitic background to the language of the New Testament, While the first Christians were not necessarily mostly lower-middleclass workers as Deissmann proposed.

 

[wanderer6059]

I guess you could say a typo. I put two verses together.

#2 was supposed to read:

Hebrews 11:34; 2 Cor. 11:30.

Thanks for catching the mistake.

not a problem lol i just wanted to make sure

 

[Angela53510]

When I read the posts in this thread. They grieve my heart horribly. I probably won't be able to convince those who have their mind made up, but the truth needs to be spoken.

The posts in this thread are completely wrong for a few reasons.

1. They assert that you don't need faith to be healed, but Scripture tells differently.
2. They assert that those who believe God will heal people are "scammers" and take people's money.
3. They assert that sickness is a sign that you're saved. Jesus didn't get sick, was He saved? He DID get persecuted, He did suffer for the GOSPEL. He didn't suffer to prove He was a Son. He suffered for the GOSPEL. Huge difference. His love lead Him to the cross. Not a sickbed.

Suffering is because of people persecuting those who stand up for God. Suffering is not getting a flat tire, it's not struggling with finances, suffering happens because we love those who don't love us. It has NOTHING to do with marital issues, sickness, or whatever else negative thing in people's life they think is "God's love for them". The only exception is if your spouse isn't a believer. Then you're suffering for the gospel!

The IDEA that God gives sickness is so wrong. Jesus healed people of sickness that God gave them? That gives you a divided Kingdom. Every GOOD gift is from God. You can't look at OT Scriptures to translate NT Scripture. That's just lack of understanding we are in a New Covenant.

Mark 5:25And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.

This woman IN SCRIPTURE actually is shown to have suffered much and been made poor because she followed man's way and not God's way. And she didn't get better, she got worse. God bless doctors, but their bills are astronomical.

27She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.”

This woman had heard about Jesus, heard that people were being made well. So she BELIEVED in her heart that she would be made well. But it wasn't until she TOUCHED Him that she was made well.

Listen, Jesus didn't seek her out. She sought Him out.

29And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?"

Jesus according to Scripture didn't even know she was being healed! Until He felt the power go out of His body. So it was HER faith not His that healed her. It was HER intention to be made well not His that according to Scripture.

31And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say,‘Who touched me?’” 32And he looked around to see who had done it.

Jesus had people TOUCHING Him. A whole crowd was pressed up against Him, but this woman touched Him in faith, believing she would be made well. It was her faith that connected her to the power in Christ. It was her seeking Him. It was her intentionality to touch Him with faith that made Him turn around and say who touched me?

33But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

This woman sought out Jesus, she believed in her heart she would be healed by Him, and she touched Him in faith while everyone else touched Him not recognizing the power in Him. Faith caught His attention. And like the Scripture says here, faith made her well and healed her of her disease.

The idea that faith isn't needed for healing is against Scripture. The posts in this thread are minimizing faith. They say if you don't receive it's because God doesn't want you to have it. But Jesus says different.

Matt 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.

" And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” Mark 5:25-34


While I don't agree with you at all for your interpretation, probably a better way to post this is to first post the whole passage. Then comment on the passage, and if you need to bring out a certain verse repost it. I ask this, because I always read the passage in context, and it is very easy to interpret things wrongly when you comment verse by verse. All the commentaries do this. They put up the whole passage, make general comments, and then comment on the individual verses.

Plus, it is dishonest, IMHO to analyze a verse, and then tack on a verse from a totally different book to prove your point. Jesus was cursing a fig tree, in Matt 21:22, and explaining how the temple in Jerusalem on the highest mountain in Jerusalem, was going to be thrown down. Which it was, in 70 AD, a short 40 something years after Jesus was crucified.

The other thing that REALLY annoys me about tacking Matt 21:22 on, is that the woman in the Mark 5 passage was not praying. Yes, she had faith, but what kind of faith?

A little bit of historical background is really necessary to understand what happened. No, not a metaphor, which you seem to hate, Cee, although the Bible is literally full of them, and other figures of speech. That is really understanding hermeneutics.

Anyway, in this passage, Jesus is on his way to raise Jairus' daughter from the dead. He was not in a hurry, but not waiting on the crowd.

This woman, according to the Torah, was ceremonially unclean. And not just for a brief time but for 12 years. I had this once for over a year. No details, but when I was hospitalized, I had no mature red blood cells left in my body. So either she wasn't as bad as me, or she was almost as dead as Jarius' daughter. You have to have been through this to appreciate how bad a condition it is. The body actually is losing blood faster than it can replace it.

Her prospects were not good. Perhaps this was her last hope!?

So, she is banned from the synagogue, cannot go into the temple to participate in the rites, or be cleansed of sin, because she needs 7 days past when the bleeding stops to be purified, according to the ceremonial laws of the Torah. Her salvation is at risk, because she has not been able to go to the temple for 12 long years.

She had heard "reports about Jesus." What did this mean to her? Well, Mark does not explain what was in the woman's mind, as she attempted to touch Jesus. Rulers in the ancient world were believed to possess power to bless those who touched them. Alexander the Great, for example, was mobbed by crowds, who "ran to him from all sides, some touching his hands, some his knees some his garment" in the hope of being baptized with his aura and power.* Sometimes the request was made with a more specific intent or fulfillment of a request.

The woman may have approached Jesus with similar intent, perhaps mixed with superstition. Or more likely definitely mixed with superstition, because at this point, it was all she had left. She really didn't know Jesus, just rumours of his healing power, through the grapevine. Because there was no Bible, and his disciples didn't reach everyone, and besides, the disciples didn't even know the gospel, at this point. They didn't understand that Jesus would die to "save, deliver" (soso in Greek) his people from their sins.

But perhaps she saw in Jesus something more than the aura of a ruler. She may have seen in Jesus a representative of God, who, like the altar in the temple, would render holy those who touched him. (Exude. 29:37) That she reaches for his clothing, may indicate she associates him with the God of Israel, for the reference to clothing, probably refers to the tassels on his outer garment, worn by all observant Jews. (Num. 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12)

Mark makes no reference to her orthodoxy or not. Rather Mark relates that she does the one and only important thing for a disciple to do:

she:
heard
came
touched (v. 27)

To act on what one hears about Jesus in Mark, is always the sign of a disciple, and this woman does these things. So not just believing or having faith, but DOING!

In verse 29, we read that the blood dried up. In verse 30, we find Jesus immediate response. He knows "within himself" the literal Greek) that healing has literally gone out from him. An act of faith has occurred, before the woman fully understands its meaning. Considering the woman's social stigma, Jesus response to her is remarkable. Her being in public, and touching him, both of which were violations of the Torah, are not the subject of reprimands of Jesus. Rather, she is a central figure of the story, who "tells the whole truth." (v 33) and thus she becomes a model of faith for Jairus, in the following verses.


We really have to think carefully about the whole meaning and the deeper, richer meaning of these passages. They are not just about some shallow healing by faith. They are about the culture, and how Jesus defied the expectations of Torah law, when it meant helping hurting people. This passage is about a woman who had only heard rumours, and certainly did not have saving faith. All she wanted was to be cleansed, to be purified, and to be healed. It is so important to remember that Mark chose this example, which the Jews he was writing to understood, that even a ritually unclean woman, an unbeliever, could be healed. Her devotion to getting healed - was totally fulfilled in Jesus. Because HE is the Healer - the woman had a mustard seed of faith, although she was uncertain of the theological implications of her actions. But, this incident, is included because it shows that Christ has come for all, and he will save those who reach out and believe.

And yes, definitely heal!

1. They assert that you don't need faith to be healed, but Scripture tells differently.
2. They assert that those who believe God will heal people are "scammers" and take people's money.
3. They assert that sickness is a sign that you're saved. Jesus didn't get sick, was He saved? He DID get persecuted, He did suffer for the GOSPEL. He didn't suffer to prove He was a Son. He suffered for the GOSPEL. Huge difference. His love lead Him to the cross. Not a sickbed.

As for the above nonsense, have you even read the rest of the posts on this thread? Even wanderer has realized that we do believe in healing, and yes, faith is part of that. And I have never heard or seen anyone say that sickness is a sign they are saved? Tell that to all the unsaved sick people. Just so wrong.

I do believe God allowed me to become sick because of my disobedience and the hardness in my heart, even though I was saved. I did not listen to God's call to go to seminary the first time. I wonder what he had in store for me? So after being sick with RA, and God called me to seminary, it was not an option for me to disobey a second time. I fought my husband, pastor, and church and to a certain extent, even the seminary to go there. And God did use it for good. I'm not talking about works, but changing my character, which counts more than anything! So, as Mark says, God required me to do something - go to Seminary, and then he did an amazing work in my heart and life. (Different story for others, I realize!)

So, once again a verse for you:

"More than that, we rejoice in our suffering, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5.

I would love nothing more than to be healed of my multiple auto-immune diseases. But, if the choice means being close to Jesus and him changing me, or being healed, and going my merry way (just talking about myself, here!) then I will chose sickness and the hope and love of God every time!


* Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 6:13.3. Also Plutarch, Life of Sulla 35.

 

[wanderer6059]

First, context.

"And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.”14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this.15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?”16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.17 And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.19 And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.20 So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily." Acts 19:11-20

Great piece of Scripture! I wonder why this is important? Is it because of the clothing, or the faith? Or, if we look at the rest of the passage, we find several important lessons.

it's because paul had faith in who christ was, and what He does... like heal.

1. Jewish exorcists tried to imitate Paul's closeness to Christ, and were badly surprised with what sounds like a psychotic and possessed man actually hurting them. So beware, if you are not Paul, or at least walking with Jesus as close as Paul, then do not try this at home! Seriously though, just because it happened to Paul, and used as a object lesson, doesn't mean it applies to today. If this was something we could all do, then it would have happened more than once, and probably Jesus would have done it (the hem of the bleeding woman's garment was about Jesus' power going out, not the actual clothing!). It would appear in many places, and many people doing it. Instead, it appears in context for people to beware if they try such things. Do not make a doctrine about clothing healing people if it only appears in one place, because that is bad hermeneutics!

the context here is these men had no faith, they were not even followers, thats why professing His name didn't work. they are the perfect example of Matthew 7:22. people not having that close relationship with Christ. which was not special to paul alone but to us all. and who says it isn't you, the bible doesn't say to not do it, paul dose say to imatate him tho...

2. Because the exorcists were exposed, those who practiced magic, had a very important lesson about dealing with the devil, as the sons of Sceva did. In fact, they burned their magic books to the tun of 50 thousand pieces of silver, and "THE WORK OF THE LORD CONTINUED TO INCREASE AND MIGHTLY PREVAIL." v. 19

the lesson was to do those things you need to have the right relationship, the right position with Jesus. you need to be mad righteous.

So the work of the Lord was for people to repent of the sins of witchcraft and magic. What a healing and wonderful time for the church at Ephesus. And as the book of Acts and elsewhere demonstrate, the past problems with the priestesses of Artemis and the silversmiths who made their living making silver idols of that goddess, this incident with Paul healing people with clothing, and people trying to imitate this gift, was an incredible witness to unbelievers in that city to repent of their sins - confessing - important word!

"And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled.18 Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices." Acts 19:17-18

What an important lesson for today!

fixed the context of your post

 

[wanderer6059]

So besides Thayer being totally old and outdated, by the discovery of numerous papryi he he didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy, and used commentaries of non-believers.

"Rather unfortunately, Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete quickly as Gustav Adolf Deissmann's work with the Egyptian papyri was soon to revolutionize New Testament and Koine Greek Lexicography with the publication of his Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity published in 1901 (2nd edition 1909) and also Light from the Ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. These books and similar ones that followed helped confirm and sometimes correct inadequate definitions of many words in the Greek New Testament. With this new and valuable information for studying the Greek of the New Testament, Thayer's Lexicon became a victim of history, being published less than a decade before this papyri revolution.[SUP][3][/SUP]
In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer

So no, we won't be discussing what Thayer's Lexcon says. Over 126 years old, and obsolete before it was ever used. Why? Because of WRONG DEFINITIONS! No reputable seminary ever uses Thayer's. Well, unless they want to prove something which isn't true!

and thayer's is not the only thing i used, you can see on my post after i used more. can you actually respond to the context of my post with your thoughts?

 

[Angela53510]

no, because of definitions of classical Greek, and the oldest manuscripts.

ταῖς ἀσθενείαις as it was written and used has its meaning in the word weakness, not sickness. KJV is old but it is still one of the closets translations to the original, and not to mention that you git the definition from "not just the word like you said. but the context of the writing that i thoroughly laid out.

not to mention that your copy and past from wiki. because if you study he did provid a substantial new perspective on the social level of the Christian groups in his work. That perspective can now be seen to be distorted partly by his own situation in early twentieth-century Germany and his early links with the National Social Alliance. his views of the nature of the Greek of the Bible were largely set aside by a renewed and exaggerated assertion of the Semitic background to the language of the New Testament, While the first Christians were not necessarily mostly lower-middleclass workers as Deissmann proposed.

So you have not yet learned that classical Greek is different in many places than Koine Greek? Tell you what, I'll post some things here, from reputable scholars.

"Changes in vocabulary are of course too numerous to list here. Generally, it may be said that there are many shifts in the meaning of words and in the frequency of their usage. Some examples that Gingrich gives are as follows. Καλῶς nearly replaces εὖ, ἔσχατος has taken over τελευταῖος and ὕστατος, πρόβατον replaces οἶς, and αφίημι overshadows ἑάω. A dramatic example of a word that shifts meanings is βάσανος, which shifts from “touchstone,” to “test,” to “torture,” to “disease.” We notice other important shifts. The cardinal numeral εἷς loses some of its numeric force and become equivalent to the indefinite pronoun τις in many cases. Also, ἴδιος is used as a possessive pronoun. ἑαυτῶν is substituted for the Classical first and second person plural reflexive pronouns. Robertson points out that Koiné is not adverse to useful foreign words."

"There are many differences between Classical Greek and Koiné in syntax. Koiné has shorter sentences, more parataxis and less hypotaxis, a sparing use of participles, and a growth in the use of prepositions (although some old ones have died out). Variations of nouns, adjectives, and verbs are often according to sense, and a neuter plural substantive may be used with either a singular or a plural verb. Koiné used personal pronouns in oblique cases much more often, whereas writers in Attic used them only when they were necessary for clarity.

One of the biggest syntactical differences involves the use of the optative mood. Blass notes three Classical uses of this mood. The first is to denote an attainable wish. This use still occurs in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the papyri, but there is a strong tendency to use the imperative in requests and imprecations. Attic εἴθε and εἰ γάρ do not occur with the optative in Koiné (nor do they occur with the indicative to show an unattainable wish); rather ὄφελον with the future indicative is employed. The second use is the potential optative in a main clause with ἄν to denote what is thought. This use has mostly disappeared, although it does occur in some apodoses of conditional sentences. The future indicative or the subjunctive often replaces the potential optative. The third use of the optative is that in indirect discourse. Koiné uses this function very little; in fact, it uses indirect discourse very little. The iterative optative in subordinate clauses is supplanted by ἄν and the imperfect or aorist indicative. Dana says the optative in indirect discourse occurs only three times in the NT but he makes no mention at all of the optative with a secondary tense of verbs of fearing.
In Classical Greek there were five types of conditional sentences (using Blass's classification): 1) real conditions (εἰ with the indicative), 2) contrary-to-fact conditions (εἰ with an augmented tense of the indicative), 3) conditions of more vivid expectation (ἐάν with the subjunctive), 4) conditions of less vivid expectation (ἐάν with the potential optative), and 5) repetition in past time (εἰ with the optative). In Koiné, type 1 (real conditions) has lost ground, type 2 (contrary-to-fact conditions) persists, type 3 (more vivid conditions) prevails, type 4 (less vivid conditions) is barely represented, and type 5 (repetition in past time) has disappeared. One Classical feature that Koiné does not have is the conditional relative clause, in which the indefinite pronoun substitutes for the conditional conjunction.
Another syntactical feature of Classical Greek missing in Koiné is the object clause. After a verb of striving, caring, or effecting, Classical Greek uses ὅπως with the future indicative for the object, but Koiné does not.
In Classical result clauses, ὥστε with the infinitive signifies a probable result, while ὥστε with the indicative signifies an actual result. The distinction is more nebulous in Koiné, and Dana and Mantey say the infinitive here signifies an intended result.
Robertson says that ὅπως has retreated before ἵνα and ὡς has retreated before ὅτι. ἵνα took over the function of the final particle and split the function of declarative conjunction with ὅτι. He also mentions that μή began to take over many of the functions of οὐ, except in the combination of οὐ with εἰ."

Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek

ETC. ETC. ETC

Asthenia in that passage means a weakness that comes out of sickness as Bauer, the reputable Greek source says.

As for KJV being a good "modern" version, I don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say that KJV is the one translation I have never been able to understand or read from cover to cover. And you can take any passage in the Greek and I will show you the translational problems in the KJV. Not obscure things, but simple easy things, that a first year Greek student could see. And that is why I object to backward sources like Strong's, which take the verses in KJV English, and put them back into Hebrew and Greek.

 

[wanderer6059]

So you have not yet learned that classical Greek is different in many places than Koine Greek? Tell you what, I'll post some things here, from reputable scholars.

"Changes in vocabulary are of course too numerous to list here. Generally, it may be said that there are many shifts in the meaning of words and in the frequency of their usage. Some examples that Gingrich gives are as follows. Καλῶς nearly replaces εὖ, ἔσχατος has taken over τελευταῖος and ὕστατος, πρόβατον replaces οἶς, and αφίημι overshadows ἑάω. A dramatic example of a word that shifts meanings is βάσανος, which shifts from “touchstone,” to “test,” to “torture,” to “disease.” We notice other important shifts. The cardinal numeral εἷς loses some of its numeric force and become equivalent to the indefinite pronoun τις in many cases. Also, ἴδιος is used as a possessive pronoun. ἑαυτῶν is substituted for the Classical first and second person plural reflexive pronouns. Robertson points out that Koiné is not adverse to useful foreign words."

"There are many differences between Classical Greek and Koiné in syntax. Koiné has shorter sentences, more parataxis and less hypotaxis, a sparing use of participles, and a growth in the use of prepositions (although some old ones have died out). Variations of nouns, adjectives, and verbs are often according to sense, and a neuter plural substantive may be used with either a singular or a plural verb. Koiné used personal pronouns in oblique cases much more often, whereas writers in Attic used them only when they were necessary for clarity.

One of the biggest syntactical differences involves the use of the optative mood. Blass notes three Classical uses of this mood. The first is to denote an attainable wish. This use still occurs in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the papyri, but there is a strong tendency to use the imperative in requests and imprecations. Attic εἴθε and εἰ γάρ do not occur with the optative in Koiné (nor do they occur with the indicative to show an unattainable wish); rather ὄφελον with the future indicative is employed. The second use is the potential optative in a main clause with ἄν to denote what is thought. This use has mostly disappeared, although it does occur in some apodoses of conditional sentences. The future indicative or the subjunctive often replaces the potential optative. The third use of the optative is that in indirect discourse. Koiné uses this function very little; in fact, it uses indirect discourse very little. The iterative optative in subordinate clauses is supplanted by ἄν and the imperfect or aorist indicative. Dana says the optative in indirect discourse occurs only three times in the NT but he makes no mention at all of the optative with a secondary tense of verbs of fearing.
In Classical Greek there were five types of conditional sentences (using Blass's classification): 1) real conditions (εἰ with the indicative), 2) contrary-to-fact conditions (εἰ with an augmented tense of the indicative), 3) conditions of more vivid expectation (ἐάν with the subjunctive), 4) conditions of less vivid expectation (ἐάν with the potential optative), and 5) repetition in past time (εἰ with the optative). In Koiné, type 1 (real conditions) has lost ground, type 2 (contrary-to-fact conditions) persists, type 3 (more vivid conditions) prevails, type 4 (less vivid conditions) is barely represented, and type 5 (repetition in past time) has disappeared. One Classical feature that Koiné does not have is the conditional relative clause, in which the indefinite pronoun substitutes for the conditional conjunction.
Another syntactical feature of Classical Greek missing in Koiné is the object clause. After a verb of striving, caring, or effecting, Classical Greek uses ὅπως with the future indicative for the object, but Koiné does not.
In Classical result clauses, ὥστε with the infinitive signifies a probable result, while ὥστε with the indicative signifies an actual result. The distinction is more nebulous in Koiné, and Dana and Mantey say the infinitive here signifies an intended result.
Robertson says that ὅπως has retreated before ἵνα and ὡς has retreated before ὅτι. ἵνα took over the function of the final particle and split the function of declarative conjunction with ὅτι. He also mentions that μή began to take over many of the functions of οὐ, except in the combination of οὐ with εἰ."

Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek

ETC. ETC. ETC

Asthenia in that passage means a weakness that comes out of sickness as Bauer, the reputable Greek source says.

As for KJV being a good "modern" version, I don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say that KJV is the one translation I have never been able to understand or read from cover to cover. And you can take any passage in the Greek and I will show you the translational problems in the KJV. Not obscure things, but simple easy things, that a first year Greek student could see. And that is why I object to backward sources like Strong's, which take the verses in KJV English, and put them back into Hebrew and Greek.

yeah to bad the word weakness is used as a Dative of a Indirect Object. the meaning and wording like i said is still in context. that can be established by the fact that the usage of the word in both Corinthians, then in Hebrews which use more sophisticated Greek. i have learned of both Classical and Koine Greek. but the differences as much as you put grammatically still don't change the fact that this one word for weakness is not used the way you want it to. and you might have problems with the KJV because it is Ap English. and that difference is minimal that you talk about but for that face i use the NASB also that use Bauers lexicon too. its a word for weakness, not sickness...

 

[bluto]

yeah to bad the word weakness is used as a Dative of a Indirect Object. the meaning and wording like i said is still in context. that can be established by the fact that the usage of the word in both Corinthians, then in Hebrews which use more sophisticated Greek. i have learned of both Classical and Koine Greek. but the differences as much as you put grammatically still don't change the fact that this one word for weakness is not used the way you want it to. and you might have problems with the KJV because it is Ap English. and that difference is minimal that you talk about but for that face i use the NASB also that use Bauers lexicon too. its a word for weakness, not sickness...

Did it ever occur to you wanderer to ask the question, what caused the weakness? Maybe this will help. Strong's Greek: 769. ἀσθένεια (astheneia) -- weakness, frailty

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[stonesoffire]

thats true but then why would it leave paul unhealed of a sickness? he toched it just like all the others, from my study anytime God that when God heals in the Gospels he tended to heal all. so why would paul be left unhealed?

First, I want to say my personal belief, is to believe God wants to heal me, unless He would actually say He has a purpose not to. So far, I've never heard this.

But Paul...

2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
2Co 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripessave one.
2Co 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
2Co 11:26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, inperils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, inperils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2Co 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst...

Could it be that Paul suffered far more than he ever wrote about? Stoned, beaten with rods? I've had a few injuries with results...not pleasant. I don't see anywhere he said that he was healed every time he suffered from these things. Am fairly certain it would be mentioned.

I heard a prophet speak once who said he was probably missing teeth and possibly disfigured. How would he look from all these things...then we read " I came to you in weakness". Puts a whole different spin on it, amen?

He says he learned contentness in all situations.

And its not the worst thing to happen, to die and be with the Lord. Only if it's not His timing.

But, most of us will seek to live anyway possible for as long as possible.

Its a wonderful testimony to the world to see God intervene in our lives to heal, restore, bless, and meet all our needs. I think no would be a rare response and in Paul's case, if he looked like could be imagined, wouldn't that be a testimony because of the fact that he didn't die, but lived through all of that?

 

[wanderer6059]

[TABLE="class: data, width: 1107"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ἀδράνεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]listlessness, weakness[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]ἀπομαλακίζομαι[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ, Middle Liddell[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]to be weak[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ, Middle Liddell[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]155[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]147[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]60[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]weakness, sickness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ, Middle Liddell[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]563[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]467[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]153[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]want of strength, weakness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ἀσθένημα[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]weakness, ailment,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]ἀσθένωσις[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]weakness, faintness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ἀσθενοποιός[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]causing weakness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]βραχυφωνία[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]smallness, weakness of voice[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]γυναικισμός[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]womanish weakness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]μαλακιστέον[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]one must display weakness[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]μικροφωνία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]weakness of voice[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]μικροσφυξία[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]weakness of pulse[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ὀλιγηπελία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ, Middle Liddell[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]weakness, faintness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]ὀλιγηπελίη[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]Autenrieth[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]weakness, faintness[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]ὀλιγοδρανία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]LSJ, Middle Liddell[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]2[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDDDDD, align: right"]weakness, feebleness,[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd"]
[TD="align: right"]σαθρότης[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]LSJ[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]unsoundness, weakness[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
here are the uses of the word again the one in bold is the one used in the verses i cited.

[TABLE="width: 1095"]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun sg fem voc[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun sg fem nom[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem voc[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem nom[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀσθένεια[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem acc
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

compared to

[TABLE="width: 1095"]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun sg fem nom attic doric aeolic[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun sg fem voc attic doric aeolic[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem voc[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem nom[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]ἀρρωστία[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun dual fem acc[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

that is the usage for sickness. in red bold

Καὶ εἴρηκέν μοι , Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου · ἡ γὰρ δύναμίς { μου ἐν ♦ ἐν } ἀσθενείᾳ
{ τελειοῦται ♦ τελεῖται } . Ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου , ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἡ


Noun (1st Decl.)
ἀ·σθένεια, -ας, ἡ
ασθενει·ᾳ
(fem) dat sg
weakness/want of strength

 

[wanderer6059]

Did it ever occur to you wanderer to ask the question, what caused the weakness? Maybe this will help. Strong's Greek: 769. ἀσθένεια (astheneia) -- weakness, frailty

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

bluto read your own citation... lol and i am working on getting back to your post but i am about to leave work and will be going home for the holidays (10 days in MI lol) but i promise i will get back to you.

b. of Soul; want of the strength and capacity requisite α. to understand a thing: Romans 6:19 (where ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός denotes the weakness of human nature). β. to do things great and glorious, as want of human wisdom, of skill in speaking, in the management of men: 1 Corinthians 2:3. γ. to restrain corrupt desires; proclivity to sin: Hebrews 5:2; Hebrews 7:28; plural the various kinds of this proclivity, Hebrews 4:15. δ. to bear trials and troubles: Romans 8:26 (where read τῇ ἀσθένεια for Rec. ταῖς ἀσθενείαις); 2 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 12:9; plural the mental (?) states in which this weakness manifests itself: 2 Corinthians 12:5, 9f.

 

[Angela53510]

it's because paul had faith in who christ was, and what He does... like heal.




the context here is these men had no faith, they were not even followers, thats why professing His name didn't work. they are the perfect example of Matthew 7:22. people not having that close relationship with Christ. which was not special to paul alone but to us all. and who says it isn't you, the bible doesn't say to not do it, paul dose say to imatate him tho...



the lesson was to do those things you need to have the right relationship, the right position with Jesus. you need to be mad righteous.



fixed the context of your post

Fixed the context?? Why do you think I posted the whole passage? Just because I did not specifically comment on a verse, does not mean I left out the context. I think you are grasping at straws, because you cannot refute my post. Again, read the passage I posted at the beginning of the post. No verses are skipped, they all count!

Because that is the context, and the verses are there. As I was just posting regarding Mark 5 and the woman with an issue of blood, what kind of faith did she have? Was it WoF faith, or the faith of the superstitious? Was it the faith of the desperate, near death person? Or the faith of someone who had heard rumours about Jesus, and figured that touching him might be her last chance? Was it the faith of someone looking for a king who had power, an idol to worship?

Mark is not clear, but we can be certain so early in the gospel of Mark, that he was not talking about a disciple who had been following Jesus around for 3 years, and knew all about him. Mark also talked about doing. So sometimes, faith is doing. Sometimes faith is trusting God through thick and thin, that God will work all things together for good.

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28

We live in a fallen world. The Kingdom will not be here in fullness till Jesus returns. So, yes we will have trials and tribulations always.

"I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

Notice Jesus says that when bad things come, we won't necessarily be healed or get wealthy. But he does say by knowing him, we will have peace. Why? Because he has overcome the world.

 

[Angela53510]

yeah to bad the word weakness is used as a Dative of a Indirect Object. the meaning and wording like i said is still in context. that can be established by the fact that the usage of the word in both Corinthians, then in Hebrews which use more sophisticated Greek. i have learned of both Classical and Koine Greek. but the differences as much as you put grammatically still don't change the fact that this one word for weakness is not used the way you want it to. and you might have problems with the KJV because it is Ap English. and that difference is minimal that you talk about but for that face i use the NASB also that use Bauers lexicon too. its a word for weakness, not sickness...

Ok! This really made me laugh! Or LOL!

Right from your highlighting the fact that "there are so incredibly many words that have changed meaning from classical Greek to Koine Greek, they are TOO numerous to list." And you think that proves your point?? Are you a troll, trying to mess with me? Or do you not know English as your first language?

TOO MANY means hoards, scads of them, or huge numbers. The author of the PDF did post a number of the words, but there are so many more. My Greek prof knows both languages and modern Greek. He is always pointing out differences. You just cannot say it is in classical Greek and therefore it applies to Koine.

As for this silly comment "Dative of an Indirect Object" you really are clueless! The definition of Dative, in most case is that it is the indirect object. And you can often add a "to, with, by" that is not there, because it is implied by the Dative. And there is the occasional word that takes a Dative as a Direct Object. But you have never even come close to learning those advanced things, when you think you have sewn up the argument with a dumb post like this! LOL

Just like saying a word is the Accusative of a Direct Object. That is what the Accusative is, in German, English and any kind of Greek. The Accusative is a Direct Object. The nominative is a subject, wherever it appears in the sentence. Genitive is a case of possession. Got it? These off the top of my head!

The more you talk about knowing any Greek at all, the more you reveal yourself to NOT know any!

As for "i have learned of both Classical and Koine Greek." This is an outright lie. You don't even use proper sources for Koine. As for classical, not even necessary to know, if all you want to study is the Bible. Here is a bit more:

"The nature of the Greek of the NT was a debate that raged during the
17-19th centuries. There were three basic answers offered.
1. The Hebraists argued that all examples of unusual constructions are due to the influence of Hebrew.
2. The purists said (much as you are suggesting, Dan) that all examples that seem unusual in NT Gk grammar and syntax are really good, classical Greek. They sought to find parallels for all such constructions in classical literature.
3. Some agued that NT Greek was "Holy Spirit Greek" (e.g., Cremer, Thayer). (See BAGD, xi-xii.)The discovery and study of the papyri changed those conclusions substantially.

There are currently three basic views among Koine scholars as to the nature of the Greek found in the NT.

1. Biblical Greek is standard Koine Greek: the ordinary, spoken Greek of the first century (Deissmann; see MHT 1:2P8; Colwell, IDB 2:486).
2. Biblical Greek is a unique dialect of Hellenistic, Koine Greek (Nigel Turner); this is similar to the older "Holy Spirit Greek" theory.

3. Biblical Greek is conversational Greek (Wallace).Part of the confusion lies in the failure to recognize that in any language there are three "levels": the vernacular (the "language of the streets", popular" speech, rustic, colloquial), conversational (the spoken language of educated people; grammatically correct, but lacking the subtleties, etc. of literature), and literary (the polished Koine as written by scholars/academics; artistic expression in writing).

Most NT writings fit the conversational category, though there are some that lean toward either end of the spectrum. The "mainline" group is represented by (most of) Paul and Matthew. On the edge of conversational, but leaning toward vernacular are Revelation, Mark, John, and 2 Peter. On the other side, leaning toward literary, are Hebrews, Luke-Acts, James, Pastorals, 1 Peter, and Jude. (This paragraph summarized from Wallace, "Exegetical Syntax," 8-23.)

As I understand it, there are three major characteristics of Koine Greek that mark it as distinct from Classical Greek.
1) Many words had changed meaning;
2) the grammar was simplified; and
3) expressions were phrased with greater clarity. (See Wallace, 9P11 for greater detail.)1) Many words had changed meaning. E.g., λάλεω, at one point meant "to babble." In Koine it had become the normal word for speaking. βάλλω used to mean a somewhat violent throwing, has been toned down to indicate, in some instances, simply "I put" or "I send."

The prepositions likewise had begun to overlap. Classical Greek had made a clear distinction between eis and en. In the Koine eis had begun to encroach on the territory of en. (Cp. WestcottUs comments on John 1:18; the papyri has shown than making fine distinctions between these two words is not legitimate.) Conjunctions also changed in usage. In Classical, ίνα always indicated result. In the Koine it may indicate content, result, and even a temporal "when" [Jn. 16:32].2)

The grammar was simplified. Koine is not as refined and polished as was Classical. The older language used a large number of conjunctions to express the most minute differences in the relationships between clauses. Koine has only a few, kai being the most common. Even word formation has been simplified. The older form had not only singular and plural forms, but also a dual which has disappeared in the Koine. Most of the older mi-verbs are gone, being replaced with the familiar omega forms.

Syntax was likewise modified as shorter sentences replaced the long, complex sentences of Classical Greek (though Paul still manages some long sentences in Eph. 1!).3) The Koine has also become more explicit and thus more clear.

Compound verbs are more common. It is much more common to find pronouns supplied as subjects of verbs where they are not needed. Prepositions are being used more frequently in place of phrases that formerly used only the case to express meaning.

Direct discourse is much more common than indirect discourse. There is considerable redundancy with expression such as "the very same," "each and every," and "very great."

I'm just beginning Stan Porter's collection of essays on the topic: "The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays." JSNT supp. series # 60. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. If there is interest, I'll summarize relevant portions of it in due time.RodRodney J. DeckerAssistant Professor of Greek and TheologyCalvary Theological Seminary, Kansas City(94-95 sabbatical explains the Univ. of Wisc. address!)http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00147.html

When you lie like that, you realize it brings absolutely everything you have said into disrepute. I have outed you over and over on your poor uses of Greek. This ridiculous post is another one of them. I am going to refuse to engage with you anymore. The sooner you leave the better. I don't interact with liars, and people who seem to be arrogant trolls.

My suggestion is to take Greek from a reputable seminary. Then you could actually debate the Greek, instead of coming up with beginner Greek, Chapter 2 stuff like "the dative is the Indirect Object". I knew that from high school German. You don't need Greek to understand that, and it sheds absolutely nothing on the definition.

 

[wanderer6059]

Fixed the context?? Why do you think I posted the whole passage? Just because I did not specifically comment on a verse, does not mean I left out the context. I think you are grasping at straws, because you cannot refute my post. Again, read the passage I posted at the beginning of the post. No verses are skipped, they all count!

Because that is the context, and the verses are there. As I was just posting regarding Mark 5 and the woman with an issue of blood, what kind of faith did she have? Was it WoF faith, or the faith of the superstitious? Was it the faith of the desperate, near death person? Or the faith of someone who had heard rumours about Jesus, and figured that touching him might be her last chance? Was it the faith of someone looking for a king who had power, an idol to worship?

Mark is not clear, but we can be certain so early in the gospel of Mark, that he was not talking about a disciple who had been following Jesus around for 3 years, and knew all about him. Mark also talked about doing. So sometimes, faith is doing. Sometimes faith is trusting God through thick and thin, that God will work all things together for good.

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28

We live in a fallen world. The Kingdom will not be here in fullness till Jesus returns. So, yes we will have trials and tribulations always.

"I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

Notice Jesus says that when bad things come, we won't necessarily be healed or get wealthy. But he does say by knowing him, we will have peace. Why? Because he has overcome the world.

[TABLE="width: 1095"]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]πίστις[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun sg fem nom[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: greek, bgcolor: white"]πίστις[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: white"]noun pl fem acc epic doric ionic aeolic[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[FONT=&quot]Noun (3rd Decl.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]πίστις, -εως, ἡ[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]πιστ(ι)·ς[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](fem) nom sg
faith(fulness)

predominant idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same. to trust in God, Mark 11:22; ἔχειν πίστιν τοῦ σωθῆναι, to be healed ( Acts 14:9; ἡ πίστις δἰ αὐτοῦ

context... you say it all the time

this is to you to Bluto

so i am leaving work for MI now, i will be gone for ten days but i have loved this conversation in the last few post. we have been getting in to context more and more. and i am going to look into getting a Bauer lexicon now to Angela, you have peaked my interest in getting it too for my collection. hopefully i get the money after Christmas (they cost a ton lol) but i hope we can continue to discuss like we have recently, i have enjoyed it. hay a merry Christmas and a happy new year!!![/FONT]

 

[wanderer6059]

When you lie like that, you realize it brings absolutely everything you have said into disrepute. I have outed you over and over on your poor uses of Greek. This ridiculous post is another one of them. I am going to refuse to engage with you anymore. The sooner you leave the better. I don't interact with liars, and people who seem to be arrogant trolls.

My suggestion is to take Greek from a reputable seminary. Then you could actually debate the Greek, instead of coming up with beginner Greek, Chapter 2 stuff like "the dative is the Indirect Object". I knew that from high school German. You don't need Greek to understand that, and it sheds absolutely nothing on the definition.

post 1012... you should read it, you know the one with the word ἀσθένεια used in koine Greek being the same as it was in the classical Greek... but hey lets go off on a rabbet trail to avoid the fact that the word weakness no matter how you cut it does not mean sickness

 

[Angela53510]

post 1012... you should read it, you know the one with the word ἀσθένεια used in koine Greek being the same as it was in the classical Greek... but hey lets go off on a rabbet trail to avoid the fact that the word weakness no matter how you cut it does not mean sickness

I am not a big one for copying and pasting from a source like "Blue Letter bible" but this time, it is right! Pluto posted it, but you refused to follow the link. Let's see if I can make this make sense.

astheneia: weakness, frailty​

​

​

Original Word: ἀσθένεια, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: astheneia
Phonetic Spelling: (as-then'-i-ah)
Short Definition: want of strength, weakness, illness
Definition: want of strength, weakness, illness, suffering, calamity, frailty.

HELPS word-Studies
Cognate: 769 asthéneia – properly, without strength (negating the root sthenos, "strength"). See 772 (asthenēs).769 /asthéneia ("weakness, sickness") refers to an ailment that deprives someone of enjoying or accomplishing what they would like to do. 769 (asthéneia) focuses on the handicaps that go with the weakness.[769 (asthéneia) expresses the weakening influences of the illness or a particular problem, especially as someone becomes wrongly (overly) dependent.]

ἀσθένεια, ἀσθενείας, ἡ (ἀσθενής) (from Herodotus down), want of strength, weakness, infirmity; a. of Body; α. its native weakness and frailty: 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 13:4. β. feebleness of health; sickness: John 5:5; John 11:4; Luke 13:11, 12; Galatians 4:13(ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός); Hebrews 11:34; in plural: Matthew 8:17; Luke 5:15; Luke 8:2; Acts 28:9; 1 Timothy 5:23. b. of Soul; want of the strength and capacity requisite α. to understand a thing: Romans 6:19 (where ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός denotes the weakness of human nature). β. to do things great and glorious, as want of human wisdom, of skill in speaking, in the management of men: 1 Corinthians 2:3. γ. to restrain corrupt desires; proclivity to sin: Hebrews 5:2; Hebrews 7:28; plural the various kinds of this proclivity, Hebrews 4:15. δ. to bear trials and troubles: Romans 8:26 (where read τῇ ἀσθένειαfor Rec. ταῖς ἀσθενείαις); 2 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 12:9; plural the mental (?) states in which this weakness manifests itself: 2 Corinthians 12:5, 9f.


Whichever way you read it, Paul had some real issues, mentally, physically and in the way they were hurting him, but also that he responded to these weaknesses or frailties in a Christ-like manner.

"I will boast about this person, but not about myself, except of my weaknesses." 2 Cor. 12:5 HCSB

"Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities." 2 Cor. 12:5 KJV

Infirmities - sickness, weakness. All signs that Paul was not in perfect health, had suffering for the gospel. (of course) and was not well. As is sick. SICK - get it??

 

[stonesoffire]

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This is really what this thread is about.

 

[LaurenTM]

The error in WOF is that they believe the supernatural actions of God can be caused to occur at their will(hence healing services)....NOT SO! God is God and He alone decides when the supernatural occurs. compliments of samuel23



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the above should be a magnet on a fridge...explains the difference between faith and presumption quite nicely