Replies

This unique neologism Kecharitomene

< You forgot so soon?

It is not as unique as you are making it out to be.

The same phrase had been used, but gender specific for a male, in one of of the books of what Roman Catholics refer to as Deuterocanon.

Do you not recall myself having posted to you that information -- with supporting links?

I remember yourself not replying. And here you are, going at it again.

Search back through your own comments -- what has been posted to you -- until you find it, so I don't have to. It was probably about a month ago, and took a bit doing (a lot of work) to find, assemble, and post the information.

You ignored it - or at least, did not reply. And now, due to yourself just now having repeated the same false-note claim that I'd previously corrected --you owe me the effort to go find the comment that was posted to you.

It's brilliant. No other Greek formulation could have conveyed it all.

The very same phrase had been addressed to a man with the only difference being the gender. Everything else -- each Greek letter, letter-by-letter was IDENTICAL save for a SINGLE Greek letter indicating the word was being addressed to one of male gender, rather than female. I had posted both forms for comparison -- but you did not reply.

Go find it. It's in your "my comments" section on this web site. In short-term near future, I may, or may not have time to go fetch for you again, what had taken a bit of effort to find and assemble and was posted to you --that you now seem to have ignored, or else forgotten.

Today is the 6th of August. I have a brother who was born on the 9th. Two years ago he told me he had a dream where he died in a hospital, on his birthday. Guess where he is right now? Yesterday, he took a turn for the worse. Over the phone, he sounded horrible. What little information he could supply before hanging up was worrisome (and he has a mass of cancerous growth on his liver 10 centimeter x 11 long -- and it has also spread to other internal organs -- he's heavily sedated, etc.)

For the next few days I may not have the time to deal with Romanist, Marianist ERROR.

Fix your own, woman. I've already supplied the information, and as I said, I had supplied supporting links (to sources of Greek text & English translation). It was all there, placed right in front of you. Why do you persist in your error? Time to give it up, babe. Game over.

Don't make me come back and find it, and re-post it myself. I'll come down on it (your claims over this Greek term) with both feet, if I'm forced to re-post it. I had warned you that I would --had warned that if you did not respond, yet went on repeating the false claims -- that I would. I see that time has come.

Either go find it yourself (and provide to me some reply to that note) or get ready for incoming. I'll blow your position to smithereens. Already have, actually. If there must be a next time, then I'll make sure to keep hammering the points, bouncing the rubble. Do you really want me to go there? If not, give me an option -- respond to that previous comment that had been sent to you.

Here it is, Mrs. Don-o. It was easier to find that I had assumed;

#111

and this time, I'm pinging multiple others.

You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now, even if having backed off ever so slightly from having previously claimed;

"... Bottom line: the Greek neologism, used by an angel in Luke and used by nobody else of anybody else, ever, ..."

Underlining added for emphasis for the ever ---which as it turns out, was most certainly not the case, save for gender of addressee ~only~

The term, the "neologism" had been used previous to whoever it was -- most likely the one known to us as Luke -- used the term in Luke 2 who quite possibly borrowed the term from Sirach chapter 18, verse 17, here also in side-by-side Greek, and English translation.

It is highly doubtful that an angel appearing to Mary announcing that she would give birth to Messiah of Israel would have been speaking Greek to her, leaving Luke needing find some way to express what had been conveyed in Hebrew, or Aramaic, into Greek. Yet, Luke did not need wholly invent a term, there being one in existence within Greek Septuagint.

Question: If the term conveys "sinlessness" to Mary, how would that same term addressed to a man not convey sense of sinlessness to a man to whom the same phrase was addressed? Just because there was no angel speaking Greek? lol

Woops. Don't look now Mrs. Don-o, but I just crashed ye olde Marianist claptrap hard-drive. Attempts to Reboot in near future will be re-booted [stomp-stomp] -- you could beat thine sweet bippy on that!

As I had made mention of in #111 on that other thread, prior to there having been any English translation known of, the term as used in Sirach had been translated homine iustificato in Latin Vulgate. As shown at the link, following Latin Vulgate the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) translates the phrase as "a justified man".

What's up with that?