But you do not. You reject every translation of this verse from sources generally considered reliable because you insist that one particular gloss is the 'true meaning' of the word in the Koine period. And you did not look this verse up in the BDAG lexicon to see what meaning Danker believes it has in this context - Barry did, and he posted the answer here, sense 4 is the one that lists this particular verse as an example. And when I pointed out that the word is not translated that way even once in the ESV translation of the New Testament, you responded by selecting a few examples where it perhaps could have been. You are not referring to the word meanings as understood in translations or lexicons. And you have not convinced us that you have a better way of establishing these meanings than they do.Ed Martirosyan wrote: ↑January 8th, 2018, 10:43 pmYes, languages evolve and meanings become fluent.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 8th, 2018, 6:24 pmYou seem to think that one particular gloss is the "true meaning" of the verb, and trying to force fit it into that gloss. Perhaps you are doing this because that gloss matches the parts of the word.
Do you know what "root fallacy" or "etymological fallacy" means? The English word 'decimate' once meant 'cut into 10 pieces', but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. The English word comes from a word meaning ἀπολογία, a speech in defense, but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. And you have to look at context - the words 'grow' and 'climb' have very different meanings in phrases like 'grow smaller' or 'climb down'.
That is why I refer to the word meanings in Koine as defined by English translators and workers.
I agree. And nobody here relies on the KJV for that kind of thing. For what it's worth, Strong's lexicon does precisely that, defining Greek words by the glosses used in the KJV translation.
Here's what I have found irritating: I don't get the impression that you are responding to our answers by taking them as serious possibilities and spending time carefully reading what we say together with examples taken from the text and asking whatever questions come up. It feels as though you have your mind made up before the conversation starts, and are looking for support for your position rather than a deeper understanding of how the language works. Your main response to what we say is to attempt to refute it, and we don't find your arguments convincing.Ed Martirosyan wrote: ↑January 8th, 2018, 10:43 pmMy intent is not to attack. However, I see that some folks are getting irritated. It is not my intent. If I press against the well-being of this forum I can move on, no problems. Really.
I do have other questions similar in nature, but I can move on.
If your questions are actually questions, and you want to take the time to carefully weigh the responses you get and respond in a way that shows that you have taken that time and done that work, keep asking your questions. There are quite a few people here who have a fairly deep knowledge of the language and want to help. But we are here to explore possible meanings together, taking advantage of the knowledge in our community. And you will feel us pushing you in that direction if you post here.