Understanding God’s election

[dougcho]

Correct! Including for condemnation.

Yes, Romans 9 seems to say ...
God chooses some for salvation and some for hell.

 

[Rufus]

Maybe being all-knowing is to know everything that is true. And maybe the future as it eventually appears, is not yet true, is not yet a real thing, so is not something an omniscient Being needs to know to be all-knowing. maybe your definition of all-knowing is not biblical, but a human tradition you have uncritically absorbed from others.

That there will be events in the future brought about by the actions of extant beings at the time is a present fact. That God has sufficient power and intellect to decree specific events to happen in the future, and bring them about if He chooses, is also a present fact. That many human actions are rather easy to predict, based on history, is also a present fact. God, being omniscient and therefore knowing these facts, can make predictions with whatever degree of certainty He wishes.

The Bible does not say God is absolutely immutable. God does say in Malachi that he does not change, but the context puts this assertion in contrast to the Israelites, who change their vows and their covenants. God does not change and betray those He has covenanted preservation towards, which is why treacherous Esau had been destroyed, but treacherous Jacob had not. The Bible shows God changing many times in other contexts in other ways. It is unwise to reinterpret all of those occasions in order to hold on to a misinterpretation of that Malachi verse.

God's will changes as man's hearts change. God willed to destroy Nineveh. When their hearts changed, his will for them changed., much to Jonah's chagrin.

Eternity transcends time; after all, the latter is merely a creation. In God's world there IS only NOW. There is no past or future. There is only Today with God! God exists OUTSIDE the constraints of his creation of time. God is not pantheistic, as your heresy implies. If God changes, it cannot be in eternity. And if anything changes in time it must do so chronologically. There must be a point in TIME before the change took place and another place in time during which the change takes place and another point in time after the change has taken place.

If God isn't absolutely immutable, then maybe all his other attributes and qualities are only relative as well. There is no shadow of turning with God (Jas 1:17) However, God often condescends to accommodate our finite minds by speaking anthropomorphically through his prophets (such as he did with Jonah). Besides, God is GREATER than men's hearts; he knows all things about every man's heart. God knows what's on a man's tongue before he even utters a syllable (Ps 139:4). But how can God be greater than men's hearts if he is dependent on the sons of men to gain knowledge, wisdom and insight?

So, according to you, God must learn from his moral creatures which flies in the face of the rhetorical questions God asked through his prophet in Isa 40:13-14. See also Num 23:19. In this passage, the questions are also very revealing. Moses doesn't ask, for example, "Does he (God) peer into the future and not act"? Or "does God learn from the future and not act?" No! Rather, he ask: "Does he speak and not act?" Or does he decree and not act!? See also 1Sam 15:29; Isa 46:9-11.

Lastly, get back to me when you find a text in scripture that says God works all things after the counsel of man's will. That would make for a great companion passage to Eph 1:11.

 

[Rufus]

My apologies. I misread your statement, and responded to what I thought you said.

You said, "And just who would he choose to preach the eternal Gospel: Seeds of the Serpent? Or perhaps even demons themselves?"

I read, "And just who would he choose to preach the eternal Gospel to: Seeds of the Serpent? Or perhaps even demons themselves?"

But He did also choose Judas to preach the gospel and sent him out with the twelve to heal and cast out demons.

But at the same time, Jesus knew he chose a DEVIL! And he chose Judas so that God's word would be fulfilled through him (Jn 17:12).

 

[studier]

Again, Mat 11:28 is not an invitation to things; it's an invitation to people, as you have already conceded. Jesus doesn't give spiritual rest to things -- not that I know of.

Passing over what others have said is either a lack of paying attention, a lack of ability to comprehend, or a deceptive practice. Matt11;27 is clear as is Matt11:28-29.

Also, not even the NKJV, which seems to be your preferred translation, reads as you wrote above. In fact, none of the formal or dynamic translations that I have on my computer read that way. They all read "All that..." It seems all those various teams of expert translators insidiously wanted to avoid the connotation that Jesus meant "things".

One wonders what formal or dynamic translations you have on your computer are or what these modifiers even mean. It seems pretty customary that you use such adjectives in an attempt to elevate yourself to lower others. For myself, your many fallacious methods are quite transparent and simply reveal to us who and what I'm dealing with.

So, here's my post:

Every thing that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, (Jn. 6:37)

All things were handed over/given to Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27)

THEN, after this handing over of all things to Jesus by the Father, Jesus is commanding men to come to[ward] Him.And we're right back to discussing Come = Faith vs. Come + Faith.

You can do the comparison and explain what you mean if I don't hit the point(s):

My post: NKJ John6:37 Every thing that the Father gives to Me will come to Me​

​

NKJ John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,​

NET John 6:37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me,​

​

ESV John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,​

​

NAS John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,​

​

KJV John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;​

​

NIV John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me,​

A few points of translation:​

• Both The NET and the NIV have chosen to interpret the translation as applying specifically to people. The other 4 translations are ambiguous. I don't agree with the NET or NIV translation because they obscure the other track John is building (as did Matthew) re: all things that God gives/handed over to Jesus. On the one hand I've been surprised that you have not posted these 2 translations, while on the other hand not surprised because of your m.o. Maybe these translations are not among your "formal or dynamic translations" you have on your computer. Now that I've posted them for you:
• As discussed at length, "every thing" and "all that" are translating a neuter singular adjective. Either of these translations are legitimate. IMO "all that" is ambiguous, and leads to misinterpretation, so I prefer to translate more literally and leave the interpretation of meaning to comparing how the same word is used in close context and throughout the same document > all documents by the same writer > cross comparing all Scripture. In addition to being ambiguous, IMO "all that" is not a good translation because it is neuter singular and "all [thing] that" doesn't work. Also, I see no necessity to interpret the collective (I previously suggested you see a bundle) sense of "every thing" becoming "all things" because Jesus could have said all things (plural) but He chose to focus on the singular maybe for emphasis, i.e. "each and every thing" as we might say. This again is why I choose to translate literally - I value every word and nuance in the Text and believe each word is inspired as is for a purpose.
• You can look back at the ABABA chiasm I posted and see why I choose in part to remain with the literal translation and how it connects to 6:39 where the same neuter singular adjective is used, and to earlier Scripture in John I also posted, and to Matt11:27 I also posted. We never got to it because you won't do the necessary work and I'm not doing it for you while you're sticking with your m.o., but we can see this same interplay between neuter and masculine in Jesus' prayer in John17 and we can see there some of the things God gave to Jesus.
• I am aware of other ways this neuter singular adjective can be used. I have alluded to this, @PaulThomson has pointed it out, and I have pointed to the @PaulThomson post that pointed it out. As also stated, I don't like ambiguity and will translate literally to remove it when possible and will translate literally and note ambiguity if it seems to be intentional. John is known for some of this ambiguity in some very interesting places. It is this that I and I think @PaulThomson have been attempting to get you to see and to discuss with some respect and keeping out of fallacious argumentation.

My post: Matt11:27 All things were handed over/given to Me by My Father​

NKJ Matthew 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,​

​

NET Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father.​

​

ESV Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father,​

​

NAS Matthew 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father;​

​

KJV Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father:​

NIV Matthew 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father.​

A few points of translation:​

• "were" and "have been" (leaving out the minority KJV for now) is translating an aorist verb. The Greek aorist is timeless and most often simply translated into English using an English past tense. I translate aorist verbs when the simple form is best as "were" vs. "have been" because the Greek perfect tense when pointing back is typically translated as "have been". I prefer to keep them separate in translation, so I immediately recognize in English if I'm dealing with a Greek aorist or perfect tense in the basic form. Either way, it's obvious from "were" or "have been" that were dealing with something that is past.
• The verb paradidomi (hand over/give) is a combination of the preposition para + the verb didomi (to give). The preposition intensifies the verb, so to give becomes to hand over/deliver/etc. It can also be translated simply as "give" but IMO this obscures the actual transfer takes place. I added "give" to flag that the concept of "give" is at root here.

Matt11:27 tells us that "all things" were handed over/delivered/given over to Jesus Christ just as John6:37a said they would be - every thing the Father gives to Jesus would come to Jesus.​

​

FWIW "thing" and "things" are not stated but are simply being drawn from the neuter adjectives. If we accept "all things" then we should accept "every thing".​

 

[studier]

That you haven't learned to do it, does not mean that no one has learned to do it.

I take it you've worked at this. As have I. I've had to go through a couple major shifts over the decades. The first one was the hardest and the reasons for the difficulty were interesting. But they led me to the position that the Word says what He says no matter what others say He says. I've also watched others work at this letting go when I was teaching and drawing out the grammar and comparing several different English translations people were using. Some had much less problem dropping a presupposition than others. I had less of a problem than did others. Some seemed to actually fear when they were faced with something that seemed to conflict with what they had thought for some time. Different dynamics as well as personalities in the rooms.

 

[Rufus]

Passing over what others have said is either a lack of paying attention, a lack of ability to comprehend, or a deceptive practice. Matt11;27 is clear as is Matt11:28-29.



One wonders what formal or dynamic translations you have on your computer are or what these modifiers even mean. It seems pretty customary that you use such adjectives in an attempt to elevate yourself to lower others. For myself, your many fallacious methods are quite transparent and simply reveal to us who and what I'm dealing with.

So, here's my post:



You can do the comparison and explain what you mean if I don't hit the point(s):

My post: NKJ John6:37 Every thing that the Father gives to Me will come to Me​

​

NKJ John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,​

NET John 6:37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me,​

​

ESV John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me,​

​

NAS John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,​

​

KJV John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;​

​

NIV John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me,​

A few points of translation:​

• Both The NET and the NIV have chosen to interpret the translation as applying specifically to people. The other 4 translations are ambiguous. I don't agree with the NET or NIV translation because they obscure the other track John is building (as did Matthew) re: all things that God gives/handed over to Jesus. On the one hand I've been surprised that you have not posted these 2 translations, while on the other hand not surprised because of your m.o. Maybe these translations are not among your "formal or dynamic translations" you have on your computer. Now that I've posted them for you:
• As discussed at length, "every thing" and "all that" are translating a neuter singular adjective. Either of these translations are legitimate. IMO "all that" is ambiguous, and leads to misinterpretation, so I prefer to translate more literally and leave the interpretation of meaning to comparing how the same word is used in close context and throughout the same document > all documents by the same writer > cross comparing all Scripture. In addition to being ambiguous, IMO "all that" is not a good translation because it is neuter singular and "all [thing] that" doesn't work. Also, I see no necessity to interpret the collective (I previously suggested you see a bundle) sense of "every thing" becoming "all things" because Jesus could have said all things (plural) but He chose to focus on the singular maybe for emphasis, i.e. "each and every thing" as we might say. This again is why I choose to translate literally - I value every word and nuance in the Text and believe each word is inspired as is for a purpose.
• You can look back at the ABABA chiasm I posted and see why I choose in part to remain with the literal translation and how it connects to 6:39 where the same neuter singular adjective is used, and to earlier Scripture in John I also posted, and to Matt11:27 I also posted. We never got to it because you won't do the necessary work and I'm not doing it for you while you're sticking with your m.o., but we can see this same interplay between neuter and masculine in Jesus' prayer in John17 and we can see there some of the things God gave to Jesus.
• I am aware of other ways this neuter singular adjective can be used. I have alluded to this, @PaulThomson has pointed it out, and I have pointed to the @PaulThomson post that pointed it out. As also stated, I don't like ambiguity and will translate literally to remove it when possible and will translate literally and note ambiguity if it seems to be intentional. John is known for some of this ambiguity in some very interesting places. It is this that I and I think @PaulThomson have been attempting to get you to see and to discuss with some respect and keeping out of fallacious argumentation.

My post: Matt11:27 All things were handed over/given to Me by My Father​

NKJ Matthew 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,​

​

NET Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father.​

​

ESV Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father,​

​

NAS Matthew 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father;​

​

KJV Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father:​

NIV Matthew 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father.​

A few points of translation:​

• "were" and "have been" (leaving out the minority KJV for now) is translating an aorist verb. The Greek aorist is timeless and most often simply translated into English using an English past tense. I translate aorist verbs when the simple form is best as "were" vs. "have been" because the Greek perfect tense when pointing back is typically translated as "have been". I prefer to keep them separate in translation, so I immediately recognize in English if I'm dealing with a Greek aorist or perfect tense in the basic form. Either way, it's obvious from "were" or "have been" that were dealing with something that is past.
• The verb paradidomi (hand over/give) is a combination of the preposition para + the verb didomi (to give). The preposition intensifies the verb, so to give becomes to hand over/deliver/etc. It can also be translated simply as "give" but IMO this obscures the actual transfer takes place. I added "give" to flag that the concept of "give" is at root here.

Matt11:27 tells us that "all things" were handed over/delivered/given over to Jesus Christ just as John6:37a said they would be - every thing the Father gives to Jesus would come to Jesus.​

​

FWIW "thing" and "things" are not stated but are simply being drawn from the neuter adjectives. If we accept "all things" then we should accept "every thing".​

You still haven't explained adequately how "things" literally come to[ward] Christ. How does God's "giving" of "things" move those things to literally come to[ward] Jesus?

And when any person here on earth comes to Christ in faith, does he have to literally (physically) move towards Christ who is in heaven? If so, how does that work? Does the Gr. term rendered "come" require a physical movement, or can one come spiritually to Christ?

It's good to know, however, that "thing(s)" is not explicitly stated any more than "men" are in Jn 12:32.

And in v. 37a, how do you reconcile "all that" which everyone of my translations (including all the most literal) state), or your "Every thing" (which you prefer) square with "he/him" that comes to me in part b of the text? How come part b. doesn't read "every thing" that comes to me or "that which comes to me". There's seems to be a disconnect between the two parts of the verse. Are the translators saying that while the Father gives to the Son "all things" or "every thing" or "all that", nonetheless it only moral agents who actually come to Christ?

 

[Rufus]

Yes, Romans 9 seems to say ...
God chooses some for salvation and some for hell.

And those He chose for condemnation willingly cooperate with his eternal decree. How can they not? Unregenerate sinners naturally LOVE the darkness!

 

[Rufus]

I have a question for our resident Greek "experts" in this thread. Can someone explain to me, preferably in layman's lingo, what the aorist subjunctive mood of a verb means in the Greek?

 

[studier]

You still haven't explained adequately how "things" literally come to[ward] Christ.

You know there is no "adequately" in your opinion. I sent you a gift, did it come yet? Did the delivery hand it over to you? Quite an odd concept for the western mind...

It's good to know, however, that "thing(s)" is not explicitly stated any more than "men" are in Jn 12:32.

Never learning and coming to knowledge of truth. All [men] is stated there. An obvious case of being gender challenged and unwilling to change.

Chiastically:

A) Never learning and coming to knowledge of truth.

B) All [men] is stated there.​

A') An obvious case of being gender challenged and unwilling to change.

To explain, the two A) clauses are parallel to and explain one another. So, your being gender challenged and unwilling to change explains why you're never learning and coming to knowledge of the truth.

The B clause is the central point; you do not read and understand the Greek Scripture properly (for reasons explained in the A clauses).

No color coding this time. You should get it by now.

And in v. 37a, how do you reconcile "all that" which everyone of my translations (including all the most literal) state), or your "Every thing" (which you prefer) square with "he/him" that comes to me in part b of the text? How come part b. doesn't read "every thing" that comes to me or "that which comes to me". There's seems to be a disconnect between the two parts of the verse. Are the translators saying that while the Father gives to the Son "all things" or "every thing" or "all that", nonetheless it only moral agents who actually come to Christ?

Same answer as the first sentence just above beginning with "Never". Asked and answered multiple times.

I've explained myself. Some of what I write to you is not actually meant for you. Insert first sentence in first answer above.

It does take some time to be taught some of the structures in the Text. Don't know what I can do beyond the colorizing I've done for you. I've watched babes in Christ quickly grasp such things written out for them. In fact, I've never seen anyone not understand it. Old dogs new tricks, I guess. Too bad because picking these things up in Scripture answers beautifully many interpretive questions just as they are designed and inserted to do.

 

[Magenta]

Passing over what others have said is either a lack of paying attention, a lack of ability to comprehend, or a deceptive practice.

I see great loads of hooey when some people post ...deciding to ignore it is none of the options you provided in your logical fallacy above. Just more of the same.

 

[studier]

I have a question for our resident Greek "experts" in this thread. Can someone explain to me, preferably in layman's lingo, what the aorist subjunctive mood of a verb means in the Greek?

Since it has seemed from your posts that you're the only Greek "expert" here, we'll have to remove the rhetoric and quotes on "experts" and better delete the word and I'll tell you that in layman's lingo the subjunctive mood can be used in several ways, and it would be best to be verse specific in order to see all the wording in the statement and explain more precisely how it is being used.

If you're using an interlinear as you previously mentioned, it would be helpful to know what it is. Can you provide a link, or do you have a book (old school)?

 

[Rufus]

You know there is no "adequately" in your opinion. I sent you a gift, did it come yet? Did the delivery hand it over to you? Quite an odd concept for the western mind...

But Jn 6:37 doesn't teach that the Father "sent" anything to the son. Did God send the sun, moon and stars to him (i.e. "every thing"). There are many ways the Gr. term "didoosin" (Strong's 1325) is used but nowhere do I see in the study tools I have where the term means to send. Per BLB Classic:

1. to give
2. to give something to someone
   
   1. of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
      
      1. to bestow a gift
   2. to grant, give to one asking, let have
   3. to supply, furnish, necessary things
   4. to give over, deliver
      
      1. to reach out, extend, present
      2. of a writing
      3. to give over to one's care, intrust, commit
         
         1. something to be administered
         2. to give or commit to some one something to be religiously observed
   5. to give what is due or obligatory, to pay: wages or reward
   6. to furnish, endue
3. to give
   
   1. to cause, profuse, give forth from one's self
      
      1. to give, hand out lots
   2. to appoint to an office
   3. to cause to come forth, i.e. as the sea, death and Hell are said to give up the dead who have been engulfed or received by them
   4. to give one to someone as his own
      
      1. as an object of his saving care
      2. to give one to someone, to follow him as a leader and master
      3. to give one to someone to care for his interests
      4. to give one to someone to whom he already belonged, to return
4. to grant or permit one
   
   1. to commission In short, your explanation via a lame analogy comes up a wee bit short (as in inadequate). If John meant that the father sent "every thing" to Christ, is there not a Gr. term for send or sent? If you're going to use an analogy to explain a Gr. term, it would behoove you to use one that is at least remotely related to that term.
      
      
      

Never learning and coming to knowledge of truth. All [men] is stated there. An obvious case of being gender challenged and unwilling to change.

The term "men" in Jn 12:32 isn't in any of my interlinears. Since you already have two strikes against you, coming right out of the chute, I am pulling a YOU by not reading the rest of your tome.

 

[lrs68]

Who is denying choice? I haven't seen anyone do that. Who are you talking about? Only people I've seen keep on clearly saying that free will doesn't = choice and we all have choice. Have not seen anyone in 471 pages deny we have a choice. This is the whole disagreement right here. You think they're saying something that's not being said. YOU are.

Interesting!
I could have sworn several are applying and implying the tenets of TULIP throughout this thread

But to those who are debating the viewpoint of choice it really doesn't matter. It's the ones speaking directly about free will that I am intrigued by

 

[Rufus]

Since it has seemed from your posts that you're the only Greek "expert" here, we'll have to remove the rhetoric and quotes on "experts" and better delete the word and I'll tell you that in layman's lingo the subjunctive mood can be used in several ways, and it would be best to be verse specific in order to see all the wording in the statement and explain more precisely how it is being used.

If you're using an interlinear as you previously mentioned, it would be helpful to know what it is. Can you provide a link, or do you have a book (old school)?

Hmm....would you agree with the definition provided in this link?

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-aorist-subjunctive-tense-in-layman-s-terms

 

[Rufus]

Interesting!
I could have sworn several are applying and implying the tenets of TULIP throughout this thread

But to those who are debating the viewpoint of choice it really doesn't matter. It's the ones speaking directly about free will that I am intrigued by

Man, as a free moral agent (not to be confused with the myth of "freewill") certainly makes choices. All moral agents, like their Creator, freely make choices that align with their essence (nature). No one here, that I know of, has ever said the sons of men don't make real choices, notwithstanding the limitations of the Creator and his image-bearers.

 

[lrs68]

Man, as a free moral agent (not to be confused with the myth of "freewill") certainly makes choices. All moral agents, like their Creator, freely make choices that align with their essence (nature). No one here, that I know of, has ever said the sons of men don't make real choices, notwithstanding the limitations of the Creator and his image-bearers.

There's literally 40 examples of using the WILL, which our WILL has nothing to do with choice.


8
Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the Lord and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the Lord your God.

28
Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside[f] the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.

23
And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."


Best example of yielding is the process of salvation.
1. Hear the Gospel preached
2. Given Faith from God to Believe
3. YIELDING to God to let God do His Will.

Jesus, the human being, said NOT MY WILL BE DONE but YOUR WILL be done.

Free Will is about YIELDING your will to God to feed the SPIRIT.
Choice is about which menu item do I want to eat to feed my FLESH

 

[Rufus]

There's literally 40 examples of using the WILL, which our WILL has nothing to do with choice.


8
Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the Lord and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the Lord your God.

28
Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside[f] the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.

23
And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."


Best example of yielding is the process of salvation.
1. Hear the Gospel preached
2. Given Faith from God to Believe
3. YIELDING to God to let God do His Will.

Jesus, the human being, said NOT MY WILL BE DONE but YOUR WILL be done.

Free Will is about YIELDING your will to God to feed the SPIRIT.
Choice is about which menu item do I want to eat to feed my FLESH

Or choice can also be what book in my library should I read today to feed my spirit.

 

[lrs68]

Or choice can also be what book in my library should I read today to feed my spirit.

I can agree with that

I merely provided those scriptures because they show there's time when what we do is beyond a choice but we do it because it's the leading of God and we freely choose to obey Him.

 

[Kroogz]

Or choice can also be what book in my library should I read today to feed my spirit.

But an unbeliever will not and cannot choose a book about Jesus Christ and salvation. God forbids that kind of choice.

 

[studier]

Hmm....would you agree with the definition provided in this link?

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-aorist-subjunctive-tense-in-layman-s-terms

"Hmm" yourself.

No. Firstly this is some kind of cumulative drawing upon Classical Greek and other sources, and it is a page about English Grammar for whatever purposes. A lot changed over the centuries from Classical to Koine- Common Greek used in the NC.

If you truly want to get a better understanding of NT Greek and the subjunctive mood as used in the NC Writings, go to the last http: link on your linked page that takes you to the pdf's at ntgreek.org re: subjunctive mood uses. The 3 pdf's there will give you a glimpse of what I was telling you about the range of the subjunctive mood and of the reason I asked you for the verse you want to analyze re: the subjunctive.

While you're on that site, look around at the recommended beginner, intermediate and advanced textbooks he recommends. FWIW, I was formally (since you like that word) trained a few decades ago for 3 years using those materials and doing and analyzing translations in practice. I can copy small sections of Wallace's Greek Beyond the Basics to provide his teachings on Greek language issues and can do the same from several Greek Lexicons defining words if needed. IOW I can post way more than you can get from whatever interlinear you're using and keeping secret for whatever reason.

I'll look at your other post when I can.