• Dear Dr. Runge, I am busy with my Masters degree and would appreciate your feedback on the below, please. From your teachings, I learned that the expected word order in Greek for finite verbs in indicative, imperative, and subjunctive moods is a verb-pronoun-subject-object-indirect object order. My question pertains to the constituent orders in the two infinitival clauses in Matthew 7:11d (οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, κ.τ.λ ) and 7:18 (οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθόν καρπούς πονηρούς ποιεῖν (7:18; οὐδὲ [δύναται] δένδρον σαπρὀν καρποὐς καλούς ποιεῖν.), respectively. In both instances, the constituent order seems to conform to a default (VS/VO) order, but in the LDGNT you've marked the subjects δένδρον ἀγαθόν/σαπρὀν as P1 constituents, and the objects καρπούς πονηρούς/καλούς as emphatic (P2) constituents. In the case of the latter, the information is established (and not newly asserted), so it adds to my confusion. What am I missing? Is there perhaps a specific rule that governs constituent order in infinitival clauses that I am unaware of? Warm regards, Estelle
    1. Dr. Runge, I'm referencing your work on Discourse grammar for a project I am researching and have found your work on men/de to be helpful. Do you know, or know of anyone who has studied, whether men/de clauses or phrases, where verbs are present, always have the same mood for both verbs? I.e. "men" + indicative always results in "de" + indicative, or can "men" + indicative result in "de" + subjunctive/imperative, etc.? I am trying to figure out whether the "Men" in 1Co 12:28 should be understood as being balanced out by "de" in 1Co 12:31, and if so whether that grammatical construction would then determine the mood of ZELOUTE in v.31.
      1. In the videos for the LA211 mobile ed. course, NT example passages showing Greek and English. Which resource is it that you are using?
        1. If there are blue icons and the text is in a block indent format, then the resource is (now) the Lexham Greek a Discourse dataset, https://www.logos.com/product/131520/lexham-discourse-greek-new-testament-datasets
      2. Hello Steve Do you intend to Publish and Release any more New Testament Commentaries then are accounted for With you Being the Editor. From Jeff Keller
        1. I guess The Reason I have asked that I go only to your resource's for the Best in Biblical Scholarship Pertaining to my area of study Jeff Keller
        2. My role at Faithlife has shifted away from content creation over the last year, so I do not see work continuing on these projects anytime soon.
        3. sigh!
      3. Dr. Runge, Thank you for your work in discourse grammar of the NT. I believe this study will further equip me for exegesis study as I am an English only student. In LA211 Segment 6 Example 2, Eph. 5:18 ff., you speak of elaborations of what "being filled with the Spirit" is about. You note vv. 22-24 form part of that same subject, and v. 25 begins a new topic. I follow your thought and it makes sense. Yet, most English translations begin a new paragraph with v. 22. Why are they transitioning to a new thought development?
        1. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, there is a break, but to a lower level digression for an example of what it looks like to submit to one another. The big idea for this section the exhortation to walk in the Spirit. This is followed by a series of elaborating participles in Greek that spell out in more detail what it practically looks like to do that: speaking to one another, singing and making melody, giving thanks, and submitting to one another. These participles are not advancing things but instead fleshing out the big idea. Similarly, v. 22 is doing the same kind of thing, fleshing out in more detail what Paul has in mind when he is talking about submitting to one another. So on the one hand, it is a new section, but on another it is building out upon v. 21. The higher-level hortatory line of the discourse is then resumed in v. 25 with the command for husbands to love their wives. If you take a look at the propositional outline feature (just do a search for a helps video if this is new), you will be able to see this reflected by the indenting of v. 22 w.r.t. v. 21. Hope that helps!
        2. Thank you Dr. Runge. Your explanation makes clearer sense to Paul's structuring his flow of thought.
      4. Can anyone help me understand how jealous is a noun in Zechariah 8:2 word #14 KJV?
        1. Hi Steve I'm so blessed to have your resource's aviable. My question is "are the High Definition Commentary's and the LDGNT database the same thing or to different things. Looking forward to finding out. Sincerely Jeff
          1. Hi Jeff, The easiest way to answer your question is to have you look at the samples. The LDGNT is a database that you interact with, the other is a prose commentary for you to read. There are samples and a description of them at http://www.hdcommentary.com/. As far as the LDGNT, here is an introductory video: https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/d12bs4khb5?videoFoam=true Hope that helps
        2.  — Edited

          Hello Steve, I have a question regarding the repeated phrase in Genesis 1 "There was evening, there was morning, the 'insert number' day." There are various ways to View interpretation of the word Day in Genesis as listed in the FSB: Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. my Question: Would the Ancient Hebrews read the Words of Genesis chapter 1 and think in terms of a 24 hour day for each of the creation sequences? I am positive that Almighty YHWH indeed could create the universe in any number of hours, days, years, nanoseconds, etc. which He would choose. I always think of YHWH as being outside of time [therefore time means little to Him - I'm thinking He created time for the benefit of Humankind] The sun & moon, made to be for signs, seasons, days & years and to rule over the day & night, weren't created until Day 4. This makes me wonder if YHWH didn't use the "numbered Day" phrase for each creation sequence to provide ordering of creation information for the sake of humankind's understanding. Am I off the beam, thinking that we shouldn't try to put YHWH in any particular "time" box of one kind or another in Genesis 1? I am very willing to let YHWH do as He will [and not know His exact answer to my feeble questions] even in the face of feeling pressured in my Bible study group to believe a certain way about the "day" language in Gen 1. Again, how would the ancient Hebrews read Genesis "day" language? Thanks, Edie
          1. Hi Edie, I’d recommend reading something like John Walton’s Lost World of Genesis 1 (https://www.logos.com/product/52907/the-lost-world-of-genesis-one-ancient-cosmology-and-the-origins-debate) You may not agree with his conclusions, but it is a great place to better understand the ancient Near East and how things like days were conceptualized. A helpful analogy I heard once was the idea of Stephen Hawking explaining photon energy to you or me. Most likely he would have to simplify it so much for us to understand that it almost becomes wrong, but telling us something we don’t understand won’t give us any understanding YHWH’s purpose in Genesis is to communicate His character and will to us, something we (or more specifically the ANE reader) could wrap their head around based on what they knew of the world. This is where I stand personally, but my brain is too small to reconcile this with all of the scientific and apologetic implications. That’s why I’d suggest Walton.
          2. Thank you Steve, I have done Professor Walton's MobEd OT302 on Genesis and appreciated and gained much from his teaching. I am glad to have another resource by him to study regarding the specific debates on Genesis. I have been in the same camp as you regarding YHWH giving the ancients what they needed to understand him as best humans could, plus I think that we today are not actually that much ahead of the ancients in understanding YHWH, except that today we have much scientific knowledge that tends to make humans feel all "high & mighty" with scientific "facts" & knowledge [which by the way, change as time progresses and human's understanding of scientific study results change]. I, like you, recognize that my brain is small & can not reconcile all apologetic/ scientific points of view. Actually, any god that I can understand totally is not a god worthy of worship and certainly is not YHWH Almighty. I take joy in knowing that YHWH will either explain these knotty questions I have when He takes me home or He will make the questions depart from me never to be a bother forevermore. Either way is fine with me. Thank you Steve for what you do for YHWH's kingdom and your responsiveness to my questions. YHWH's blessing on you, Edie
        3.  — Edited

          Hi Dr. Runge, For you a word of encouragement: First, let me say I very much enjoy watching your Faithlife videos; your enthusiasm for God's truth is free & wild and I am inspired by it. Second, AMEN!!!! The video today about God re-wiring our brains is great. Yahweh has a mess to rewire in my brain, but I know without fail that He is up to the task and has been faithful all my life to fixing the mess. I totally look forward to the day He completes His work in me. He has been faithfully teaching me how to not stand in His way during the re-wiring. I may be a slow learner but Yahweh is faithful and patient always! Praise Yahweh always and forever!!! Edie