<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Hellenisti</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hellenisti.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hellenisti.com</link>
	<description>... in the Greek langugae</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:14:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Tutorial 1.4: More help for learning Greek letters and sounds by GiO</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/02/tutorial-14-more-help-for-learning-greek-letters-and-sounds/comment-page-1/#comment-297</link>
		<dc:creator>GiO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=211#comment-297</guid>
		<description>About the part where you are suposed to say the alphabet backwards, not even Greeks can do it... ( I am Greek)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About the part where you are suposed to say the alphabet backwards, not even Greeks can do it&#8230; ( I am Greek)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Tutorial 1.4: More help for learning Greek letters and sounds by Mitch Kim</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/02/tutorial-14-more-help-for-learning-greek-letters-and-sounds/comment-page-1/#comment-296</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitch Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=211#comment-296</guid>
		<description>Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Tutorial 1.1: Greek Alphabet by Ramses</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/01/tutorial-11-greek-alphabet/comment-page-1/#comment-295</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=184#comment-295</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not too sure if Χ makes a &quot;k&quot; sound. I always thought it was more like &quot;ch&quot; in German &quot;bach&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not too sure if Χ makes a &#8220;k&#8221; sound. I always thought it was more like &#8220;ch&#8221; in German &#8220;bach&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Vocabulary Tips by Ramses</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2008/11/vocabulary-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=45#comment-294</guid>
		<description>Personally, I use a program like Anki (http://ichi2.net/anki) because it uses the leitner system (more or less the system you use, but now the computer calculates when you need to see a word again in order to remember it).

Also: what do you think of learning/remembering the words in context? This could greatly improve the retention period.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I use a program like Anki (<a href="http://ichi2.net/anki" rel="nofollow">http://ichi2.net/anki</a>) because it uses the leitner system (more or less the system you use, but now the computer calculates when you need to see a word again in order to remember it).</p>
<p>Also: what do you think of learning/remembering the words in context? This could greatly improve the retention period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Mike Aubrey on Ephesians 5:21-22 by Jaymz</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/02/mike-aubrey-on-ephesians-521-22/comment-page-1/#comment-288</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaymz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=325#comment-288</guid>
		<description>Hey Mike,

Just thought I would drop a comment. I am researching Eph. 5:21-33 right now for a Greek paper and I was interested by the dialouge that&#039;s been going on at this website. I am not too far in the study, but I notice right away that verse 21 can go either with the preceding context (v.18-21), or with the following context (v.22-33, along with the other household duties). 

It seems the big debate is how the participle for &quot;subject&quot; is functioning in verse 21. Either it is adverbial, meaning it is subordinate to the imperative &quot;be filled with the Spirit&quot; in verse 18,&quot; either as a participle of means or result, or it is an imperatival participle, independent of the preceding context, issugin a command that functions as the heading for all the household duties in the following context.

I noticed that all the participles in verses 19-21 were present tense, and that each verse from 19-21 ended with a title for God (Father, God, and Christ).  The parallels made me think verse 21 went with the preceding context and that the participle in verse 21 was adverbial just like the other four participle are in verses 19-20.  However, then I saw that the participle in verse 21 is distinct.  It is the only one in the passive voice, while the participles in verses 19-20 are in the active voice.  The participle in verse 21 is talking about what one does, namely &#039;submit.&#039;  While the other four are talking about what one says &#039;speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks.&#039;  I also notice that the curiccular version in Colossians 3:16-17 has close parallels to the participles in Ephesians 5:19-20.  The only participle that Colossians 3:16-17 doesn&#039;t match up with, is that of &quot;subject&quot; in Ephesians 5:21.  That comes in the next verse: Colossians 3:18, which is an imperative, under the context of giving instructions to wives.  Finally, and most obvious, is that the verb form for &quot;subject&quot; occurs again in the following context, in Eph 5:24.  However, the word doesn&#039;t occur anywhere in the preceding context.  Right now, I&#039;m leaning toward the participle in verse 21 begin imperatival, making it a heading for the household orders.

The big problem with this, I see, is how is &quot;be subject to one another&quot; working with the following context?  Only wives are told to be subject to their husbands.  Is verse 21 talking about reciprocal submission?  Why then are only wives commissioned to do so?  So that&#039;s where I&#039;m at in my studies.  I appreciated your comments on the passage.  If you have anything helpful, shoot me an email if you get a chance.

Thanks for reading, Jaymz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Mike,</p>
<p>Just thought I would drop a comment. I am researching Eph. 5:21-33 right now for a Greek paper and I was interested by the dialouge that&#8217;s been going on at this website. I am not too far in the study, but I notice right away that verse 21 can go either with the preceding context (v.18-21), or with the following context (v.22-33, along with the other household duties). </p>
<p>It seems the big debate is how the participle for &#8220;subject&#8221; is functioning in verse 21. Either it is adverbial, meaning it is subordinate to the imperative &#8220;be filled with the Spirit&#8221; in verse 18,&#8221; either as a participle of means or result, or it is an imperatival participle, independent of the preceding context, issugin a command that functions as the heading for all the household duties in the following context.</p>
<p>I noticed that all the participles in verses 19-21 were present tense, and that each verse from 19-21 ended with a title for God (Father, God, and Christ).  The parallels made me think verse 21 went with the preceding context and that the participle in verse 21 was adverbial just like the other four participle are in verses 19-20.  However, then I saw that the participle in verse 21 is distinct.  It is the only one in the passive voice, while the participles in verses 19-20 are in the active voice.  The participle in verse 21 is talking about what one does, namely &#8217;submit.&#8217;  While the other four are talking about what one says &#8217;speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks.&#8217;  I also notice that the curiccular version in Colossians 3:16-17 has close parallels to the participles in Ephesians 5:19-20.  The only participle that Colossians 3:16-17 doesn&#8217;t match up with, is that of &#8220;subject&#8221; in Ephesians 5:21.  That comes in the next verse: Colossians 3:18, which is an imperative, under the context of giving instructions to wives.  Finally, and most obvious, is that the verb form for &#8220;subject&#8221; occurs again in the following context, in Eph 5:24.  However, the word doesn&#8217;t occur anywhere in the preceding context.  Right now, I&#8217;m leaning toward the participle in verse 21 begin imperatival, making it a heading for the household orders.</p>
<p>The big problem with this, I see, is how is &#8220;be subject to one another&#8221; working with the following context?  Only wives are told to be subject to their husbands.  Is verse 21 talking about reciprocal submission?  Why then are only wives commissioned to do so?  So that&#8217;s where I&#8217;m at in my studies.  I appreciated your comments on the passage.  If you have anything helpful, shoot me an email if you get a chance.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading, Jaymz</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Mike Aubrey on Ephesians 5:21-22 by Mike Aubrey</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/02/mike-aubrey-on-ephesians-521-22/comment-page-1/#comment-287</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Aubrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=325#comment-287</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Validity in Interpretation by E.D. Hirsch by Summary of Validity in Interpretation &#171; New Testament Interpretation</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/02/validity-in-interpretation-by-ed-hirsch/comment-page-1/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>Summary of Validity in Interpretation &#171; New Testament Interpretation</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=299#comment-207</guid>
		<description>[...] D. Hirsch’s Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale, 1967) available on his website, ̔Ελληνιστί, in HTML [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] D. Hirsch’s Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale, 1967) available on his website, ̔Ελληνιστί, in HTML [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on βαπτίζω in Philo by Alan Knox</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/01/%ce%b2%ce%b1%cf%80%cf%84%ce%af%ce%b6%cf%89-in-philo/comment-page-1/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Knox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=275#comment-42</guid>
		<description>Dusty,

I&#039;m sorry that I forgot to respond to your comment. For the most part, I simply use symbols on this site. You might want to check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.typegreek.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.TypeGreek.com&lt;/a&gt;.

-Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dusty,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry that I forgot to respond to your comment. For the most part, I simply use symbols on this site. You might want to check out <a href="http://www.typegreek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.TypeGreek.com</a>.</p>
<p>-Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on βαπτίζω in Philo by Dusty Caldwell</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/01/%ce%b2%ce%b1%cf%80%cf%84%ce%af%ce%b6%cf%89-in-philo/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Dusty Caldwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=275#comment-25</guid>
		<description>p.s.
What html encoding/font are you using on this site for your Greek font?  I used fontface=&quot;symbol&quot; and it came out in came out in a standard font.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>p.s.<br />
What html encoding/font are you using on this site for your Greek font?  I used fontface=&#8221;symbol&#8221; and it came out in came out in a standard font.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on βαπτίζω in Philo by Alan Knox</title>
		<link>http://www.hellenisti.com/2009/01/%ce%b2%ce%b1%cf%80%cf%84%ce%af%ce%b6%cf%89-in-philo/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Knox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hellenisti.com/?p=275#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Dusty,

I have examined a few uses of baptizo in Philo and Josephus, but not all of them. Primarily, in this series, I&#039;m interested in uses of baptizo in which water is not referenced at all. There are several of these in Philo and Josephus, as well as in the NT.

-Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dusty,</p>
<p>I have examined a few uses of baptizo in Philo and Josephus, but not all of them. Primarily, in this series, I&#8217;m interested in uses of baptizo in which water is not referenced at all. There are several of these in Philo and Josephus, as well as in the NT.</p>
<p>-Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
