Replies

I don't know how to say this gently: There is NO scholarly support that I can find for the contention that the preferred meaning of ethnos is "tribe", and my Young's Analytical concordance (based on the KJV) says of the uses of the word in the (KJV) NT 93 mean GENTILE 5 mean HEATHEN 64 mean NATION 2 mean PEOPLE.

I don't know how to tell you this gently....but Nation and People describe the tribes as well. The point is....my definition agrees with other scripture....yours does not.

Diego, did you and Uncle Chip come up with this understanding of early Church history on your own? Are there sites where one can learn more about this line of thought?

I don't speak for Uncle Chip....he speaks very well for himself.

I don't know how to tell you this gently....but Nation and People describe the tribes as well. The point is....my definition agrees with other scripture....yours does not.

Your definition agrees with your own peculiar construction of Scripture. You adduced the definition to support your interpretation. You appealed to strong to justify translating ethnos one way, to support your account of things. Now you are appealing to your account of things to support your translation of ethnos.

No sale. It's simply not credible, and it's not a credible way of making the argument.