I am just starting the Phrasing course and I’m feeling pretty challenged academically. I’m hoping to practice more before moving on to the next lesson. Could someone please give me feedback on where I put Divisions and Indentations?

Thanks so much!
Dave

@Nathan-B That’s a tricky one! It certainly is an English infinitive.

Since it’s describing “things,” you could use the Explanation relationship, as if it were a relative phrase - “things [that are] yet to be.” I think that would be the best thing to do.

@John-Mark-Steel said in Ecclesiastes 5:8-9:

The phrase “the king who cultivates the field is an advantage,” then, has a bit of sarcasm (or resignation), it seems.

That’s possible! “After all,” though, is a translation of the Hebrew ו (vav), which can mean many, many things, like “and,” “but,” and so on. Translations vary: the ESV has “but,” the CSB, NIV, and NET Bible have nothing.

The ESV translates the verse as a contrary point to verse 8: “But this is gain for a land in every way: a king committed to cultivated fields.”

The NET Bible makes the same point as the CSB and NIV, but in a more paraphrastic way: “The produce of the land is seized by all of them, even the king is served by the fields.” In this case, verse 9 is another example of injustice.

In Daniel 1:8 the Hebrew word for Defiled or Polluted is Ga’al. This rendition of the word Ga’al is found earlier in scripture to refer to “redeemed” but seems to pick up this variant after the time of the exile. I’d be curious to know if this is more than just what naturally happens in all languages where there are natural evolutions to words.

How do you explain the Godhead as three persons?
History tells us that the Church accepted Trinitarian concept set forth by
Tertullian’s wording; Father is fully God, Son is fully God, and Holy Spirit is fully God.
Does anyone have anything to share?
History, Theology.

@Ari-Constancio said in "Proper" behavior in church:

@Brent-Karding Thank you! Would you deem appropriate to speak also of Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, as you’ve done a live video on “fearing God in corporate worship” over this passage?

Yes, I had forgotten about that passage! That is one of the best ones, since it talks about fearing God and listening when you worship publicly. Thanks for reminding me!

Kuya, can you give us a list of description for the different lines in diagramming?..it looks different from the lines from Grammar Revolution. Please help kuya.

Hi Hugh,

I don’t know of any detailed resources, but this is a helpful article by Knowable Word, a good source. Most of the article is explaining why you should mark up your Bible, but it looks like you’re already convinced. The end of the article has a few short ideas. It isn’t much, but it might guide your thinking a little bit.

I’m sorry I didn’t see your post until now!

Hello, would it be difficult to add a dark theme to the modules to make it easier on the eyes?

@adiadidas15 said in Arcing Chiastic & Parallel literary structures:

If I am arcing a passage which contains a chiasm, it would be nice to reflect that within the arcing module. I realize that arcing is focused on the functional relationships between clauses, whereas literary structure (chiasms, etc.) are simply about form, so these two methods aren’t a perfect fit with each other.

I don’t think that’s possible, unfortunately, because of the visual layout of Arcing and the necessary visual layout of a chiasm. They couldn’t both be in the same space.

Sorry my reply is so late, Chris! I didn’t see this post until now.

Here I’d indent “supply and multiply your seed” further within its line, and then make “and increase the harvest” coordinate with it. That will make it more obvious that both verbs have “he” as their subject.

You could also divide 10a after “supply,” to show that there are actually two verbs there. I’d do that in my phrase, so that you could see the three parallel verbs.

Then the arrow of “for sowing” would go up to the indented phrase “and multiply your seed.”

You did well to extract “who supplies…” from between the subject and verb of 10a.

Let me know if any of that doesn’t make sense!

@Dani-Cavalheiro creo que la palabra se utiliza no para señalar la idea de un secuestro que tenga implicaciones inmorales, sino de la extracción de un grupo de personas. Sin embargo, creo que es un pasaje que se ha malentendido. Espero poder explicar esto al terminar esta publicación, posiblemente la semana que viene. Gracias por recordarme que tenía pendiente terminar esta publicación.

Gracias, por la respuesta.

Indonesian