• 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.
  • My question is about your comment in Phil 3:3 - "The true circumcision worships the Spirit of God." I'm not aware of a phrase anywhere in the bible pointing out that we are to worship the Holy Spirit. Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, “he will glorify me”. see also (John 4:23-24 ) I'm interested to know how you translated this verse this way? Doesn't the Greek read "worship 'in' or 'by' the Spirit of God?
    1. Hi John, In Greek the reference to the Spirit of God is in the dative case, which in a context like this would most naturally refer to an instrumental means, i.e., with or by. It looks like I am short a preposition! It looks like readers have been accommodating the statement thus far as you are the first to point it out. I have submitted a typo report, thanks for taking the time to bring this to my attention.
  • Sorry to bombard you with questions, but I am using your DGGNT text while teaching an exegetical course on Acts, and I am having trouble with all three of the Dative circumstantial frames that come up in the search. See my previous comments concerning Acts 6:2. My concern with the examples in Acts 22:6 & 17 is that the subject of the Dative participial clauses does not match the case of the same referent in the main clause. 22:6 - Paul (DAT) is on his way (DAT) and drawing near (DAT) to Jerusalem when the light shines around him (ACC) 22:17 - Paul (DAT) had returned (DAT) to Jerusalem and was praying (Genitive absolute) when he (ACC) fell into a trance.
    1. Hi Mike, Welcome to the messiness of language and databases! To me, what Paul is doing here is consistent with what I described in the DG ("absolute" type participial clauses where the participant is in an oblique case in the main clause). The problem is the Luke did NOT have the COMMON DECENCY to follow the grammatical principles I laid down for him. ;-) It would take more study to see whether dative is the generic case for non-subject participants, regardless of the case they have in the main clause, I don't know. But since the participial clauses are dative and the usage fits the functional profile, I labeled it as such. Not sure what would have worked better, but I fully understand that it creates confusion when it does not do what I said. This seemed better than leaving it unlabeled. Hope that helps, and know you have the complete freedom to disagree and go a different direction. My primary goal was to help exegetes spot relevant bits and provide a handle for thinking about what they might be doing.
    2. Thank you for your thoughtful and prompt response!
  • Section 12.3.3, Example 173, Page 262. Is this a good example of a Dative circumstantial frame? The finite verb precedes the dative participial clause. The verb following the Dative participle is infinitive and forms part of the complement of the main clause.
    1. With apologies, I have your DGGNT open in a floating frame and it appears that the comment is associated with the LHDNT (which I also have open). My comment regards your DGGNT book, but certainly also applies to the LHDNT if you agree that Acts 6:2 doesn't qualify as an example of a Dative circumstantial frame.
    2. I added comments to your other question, let me know if that addresses things. If not perhaps we could arrange a quick Zoom meet or something if it is pressing. If I understand things correctly, it's a form/function problem. I opted for function even if the form was a bit off as it was doing what I described in the grammar. Anyhow, hope that helps.
  • Can anyone help me understand how jealous is a noun in Zechariah 8:2 word #14 KJV?
    1. Personally, I miss the graphics. I appreciate your work, especially on James / Philippians, along with your decision to continue this series. Perhaps, as I study Galatians I will see the advantage of the change. Thx.
      1. Hi Ted, Thanks for the encouraging comments. The change was more of a necessity than a choice based on the expense of creating and printing the graphics and the apparent declining interest in the resources. I am not sure why exactly, but the James volume never sold enough copies to cover production costs in contrast to Philippians and Romans, and the Galatians volume has even few orders than James so far. This volume was a test to see whether the shift in format could make the series viable again or not, though hoping for the former. Warm regards, Steve
    2. Dr. Runge, Just a minor point, but I believe the reference listed on the second image in Romans 1:1-7 should be Rom. 1:3-4 instead of Rom. 1:2-3. The clues describing Jesus begin with v. 3 and continue through v. 4. If this is correct, perhaps you can see about getting this corrected in an update to this resource. God bless!
      1. Many thanks for pointing this out, I have submitted a typo report.
    3. 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
    4.  — 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
    5.  — 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