Sentence diagramming help
Hi,
I don’t know where to post this, but I hope someone can help me with this diagram (see below ) as I‘m having trouble with a few constituents of the sentence.
1. I believe the compound prepositional phrase “in heaven and on earth” are functioning adverbially and are modifying the adjective “every,” however, I don’t know how to diagram it (ie. what does it visually look like).
2. I’m stumped on how to diagram the constituents “derives its name”
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Comments
-
I guess I'm used to syntactic outlining. Do you have Cascadia Syntax Graphs for the New Testament:
0 -
Hi,
Thank you for the reply. I don’t have access to the Cascadia Syntax Graph at the moment.
0 -
I tried diagraming the passage further, however, I still believe the compound prepositional phrase ”in heaven and on earth derives Its name” is modifying “every“ answering question every family where? But I’m still unsure how to diagram it. Lasty, I assume “earth derives its name” is noun clause despite it lacking any of the tip off words (ie. that," "how," "what," "who," "which," "when," "where," or "why").
0 -
I'd give you a sample but I use a somewhat different Kellogg-Reed convention - horizontal lines. See Kantenwein, Lee L. Diagrammatical Analysis. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003. for instructions.
Brandon Stevens said:. I believe the compound prepositional phrase “in heaven and on earth” are functioning adverbially and are modifying the adjective “every,” however, I don’t know how to diagram it (ie. what does it visually look like).
The prepositional phrase would hang off of the adjective it modifies. the two objects would have the standard split into two lines after the prepositional object line with the and connecting the two lines
Brandon Stevens said:2. I’m stumped on how to diagram the constituents “derives its name”
Isn't it simply the verb of the relative clause modifying Father in the prepositional phrase?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I'd give you a sample but I use a somewhat different Kellogg-Reed convention - horizontal lines. See Kantenwein, Lee L. Diagrammatical Analysis. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003. for instructions.
I have the book in my Logos Library so if it isn't any trouble sending a sample would be helpful
Brandon Stevens said:2. I’m stumped on how to diagram the constituents “derives its name”
Isn't it simply the verb of the relative clause modifying Father in the prepositional phrase?
I don’t see how it's a relative clause modifying the prepositional object Father. I see ”earth derives its name” the object of the prepositional ”on” but I'm not 100% sure.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:
I don’t see how it's a relative clause modifying the prepositional object Father. I see ”earth derives its name” the object of the prepositional ”on” but I'm not 100% sure.
Consider the entire verse 15 as a relative clause ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
so something like this?
0 -
I've usually seen the compound use this structure but then I use a different set of conventions.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I have you used that structure as well, but for compound subjects & compound objects not compound prepositional phrases.
0 -
I updated the diagram placing “every” under “family” as I believe it’s answering question “how many families?” But over all would you say the diagram is correct?
0 -
Is there a reason you are ignoring "for this reason"?
The core sentence is "I bend my knees that He would grant you"...where I assume Paulus is using "bend my knees" in place of "pray".
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Is there a reason you are ignoring "for this reason"?
The core sentence is "I bend my knees that He would grant you"...where I assume Paulus is using "bend my knees" in place of "pray".
yes, The Reformation Study Bible has the following to say: ”Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60).”
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:
Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60)
It's interesting how the Biblical scholars determined that. Probably checked with James' doctor.
0 -
DMB said:Brandon Stevens said:
Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60)
It's interesting how the Biblical scholars determined that. Probably checked with James' doctor.
they probably examined the mentioned bible references in conjunction with outside sources describing the common “prayer“ practices of the Jews during the times of Jesus and Paul and drew there conclusion accordingly.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:DMB said:Brandon Stevens said:
Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60)
It's interesting how the Biblical scholars determined that. Probably checked with James' doctor.
they probably examined the mentioned bible references in conjunction with outside sources describing the common “prayer“ practices of the Jews during the times of Jesus and Paul and drew there conclusion accordingly.
DMB is making a joke about James the Just's nickname of "Camel Knees," which according to Eusebius dates back to Hegesippus (110-180): "[James] was in the habit of entering alone into the temple and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God." I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:Brandon Stevens said:DMB said:Brandon Stevens said:
Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60)
It's interesting how the Biblical scholars determined that. Probably checked with James' doctor.
they probably examined the mentioned bible references in conjunction with outside sources describing the common “prayer“ practices of the Jews during the times of Jesus and Paul and drew there conclusion accordingly.
DMB is making a joke about James the Just's nickname of "Camel Knees," which according to Eusebius dates back to Hegesippus (110-180): "[James] was in the habit of entering alone into the temple and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God." I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
ah! You learn something new everyday. [:)]
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:David Paul said:
Is there a reason you are ignoring "for this reason"?
The core sentence is "I bend my knees that He would grant you"...where I assume Paulus is using "bend my knees" in place of "pray".
yes, The Reformation Study Bible has the following to say: ”Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60).”
First half looks good (I don't think I've diagrammed a sentence since 7th grade, so my recollection of the rules of depiction are rusty), but I have reservations about the second half. Question: is it the Father that "derives" or is it "every family" that "derives"? It seems to me that it is the families, not the Father, which, if true, would require reworking the second section so that it is "family" that is the subject, not the "whom" which refers to Father, which is what's currently depicted. The second section, when set in normal sentence order, would read...
"Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from whom".
The "answer"of "from whom" is the Father, to which the second sentence (i.e. clause) is dependent while serving an explanatory function (specifically, adding details about additional roles the Father plays).
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:Justin Gatlin said:
I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
ah! You learn something new everyday.
Something else that's new to learn...it's her point (Denise's point). Once again, I was stymied by her truncated turns of phrase. But, yes, the camel knees ref makes it all clear. I probably need to download better firmware for my DMB translator.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Brandon Stevens said:Justin Gatlin said:
I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
ah! You learn something new everyday.
Something else that's new to learn...it's her point (Denise's point). Once again, I was stymied by her truncated turns of phrase. But, yes, the camel knees ref makes it all clear. I probably need to download better firmware for my DMB translator.
Oops, sorry. Somehow I didn’t realize that Denise was DMB. She changed her username, right? I was thinking of DAL, even as I copied the right name.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
David Paul said:Brandon Stevens said:Justin Gatlin said:
I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
ah! You learn something new everyday.
Something else that's new to learn...it's her point (Denise's point). Once again, I was stymied by her truncated turns of phrase. But, yes, the camel knees ref makes it all clear. I probably need to download better firmware for my DMB translator.
Oops, sorry. Somehow I didn’t realize that Denise was DMB. She changed her username, right? I was thinking of DAL, even as I copied the right name.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
David Paul said:Brandon Stevens said:Justin Gatlin said:
I assume his point is that praying on your knees was apparently not that strange.
ah! You learn something new everyday.
Something else that's new to learn...it's her point (Denise's point). Once again, I was stymied by her truncated turns of phrase. But, yes, the camel knees ref makes it all clear. I probably need to download better firmware for my DMB translator.
Oops, sorry. Somehow I didn’t realize that Denise was DMB. She changed her username, right? I was thinking of DAL, even as I copied the right name.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
David Paul said:Brandon Stevens said:David Paul said:
Is there a reason you are ignoring "for this reason"?
The core sentence is "I bend my knees that He would grant you"...where I assume Paulus is using "bend my knees" in place of "pray".
yes, The Reformation Study Bible has the following to say: ”Jews normally prayed standing (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). Kneeling in prayer appears to have been an expression of humility and urgency (Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59, 60).”
First half looks good (I don't think I've diagrammed a sentence since 7th grade, so my recollection of the rules of depiction are rusty), but I have reservations about the second half. Question: is it the Father that "derives" or is it "every family" that "derives"? It seems to me that it is the families, not the Father, which, if true, would require reworking the second section so that it is "family" that is the subject, not the "whom" which refers to Father, which is what's currently depicted. The second section, when set in normal sentence order, would read...
"Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from whom".
The "answer"of "from whom" is the Father, to which the second sentence (i.e. clause) is dependent while serving an explanatory function (specifically, adding details about additional roles the Father plays).
the “whom derives its name” is a relative clause which come to find out can be an object of a preposition see: https://www.ef-australia.com.au/english-resources/english-grammar/preposition-placement-relative-clauses/
“every” is an adjective and “family” while normally a noun can be also an adjective with that said i have just realised ”every“ can‘t be modifying “family“ since adjectives can’t modify adjectives. My understanding is that “every family” are who derive there names from the Father the “whom” are the “every family“ and are functioning adjectively answering the adjective questions “Which?” and “how many?” Therefore clarifying who the “whom“ are.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:Brandon Stevens said:
the “whom” are the “every family“ and are functioning adjectively answering the adjective questions “Which?” and “how many?” Therefore clarifying who the “whom“ are.
If you are correct, that would mean that "whom" is functioning as both the OBJECT of the preposition "from" and also as the SUBJECT of the verb "derives"?? It's been at least a dozen years since I last read a high school or college grammar just for fun, but I'm pretty sure that's impossible. One of those has to be incorrect, and it is inescapable that "whom" is "from's" object. I suggest you take seriously my suggestion above. There are two "tricks" that are helpful in reducing sentence complexity.
One is to pare a sentence down to its "core". There is a "tight" core (i.e. just the simple subject and simple predicate (verb), and a "loose" core, which is the tight core with a minimal few additional components that provide clarity. In the (actually imcomplete) sentence most recently under discussion (vv. 14-15), which consists of two clauses (of a longer sentence), the two tight cores are "I bend" and "family derives". In my first comment on this thread, where the whole sentence was presented (vv. 14-16), I identified the "loose core" of the entire sentence, which is "I bend my knees that He would grant you (to be strengthened)". The tight core would be "I bend that He would grant" (technically, this could be called a "loose" tight core, since "that" is included--the two tight cores are "I bend" and "He would grant"). For the sake of comprehension, you could add the word "so" after "bend", resulting in "I bend so that He would grant". The upshot is "I pray to elicit/motivate His granting (of strength)".
The second trick to simplifying a "churned" sentence is to restore it to its "standard" or normal form. Standard form consists of the compound subject at the front/beginning of the sentence and the compound predicate at the back/end of the sentence. Another aspect of standard form is that prepositional phrases follow the components they are describing. Any time a sentence (or clause) begins with a preposition, you have a non-standard form. Returning to the incomplete sentence addressed above (vv. 14-15), if we take it alone as a complex sentence, there are the two primary components, the independent clause and dependent clause. The independent clause is "For this reason I bend my knees before the Father", but this is not in standard form because it begins with a prepositional phrase. In standard form, it reads either as "I bend my knees for this reason before the Father" or "I bend my knees before the Father for this reason" depending on what style and nuance you wish to convey. Prepositional phrases are somewhat like plug-and-play components that you can insert anywhere in a sentence to adjust focus. Looking at the dependent clause, we have "from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name". Notice again, that this clause (i.e. sentence with seemingly "dependent" baggage), like the previous one, begins with a prepositional phrase, so it is in non-standard form. To put it in standard form, we unplug the prep phrase from the front and place it at the rear, resulting in "(E)very family in heaven and on earth derives it name from whom". "Whom" in this sentence is not interrogative, but rather relative. We could ask "to whom" does "whom" refer in this dependent clause?...but the proper way to deal with "whom" (because there is no question being asked in the sentence) is simply to assert the relationship (thus "relative" pronoun) that "whom" has to "the Father". This "dependent clause" is actually a prepositional clause, where the additonal information that's presented in the sentence "Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from..." is related to "the Father" from the previous (independant clause) sentence by means of the "glue" of the preposition "whom", which has "the Father" as its antecedent.
Brandon Stevens said:the “whom derives its name” is a relative clause which come to find out can be an object of a preposition
You are misunderstanding this concept on two fronts. First, "whom derives its name" is not a relative clause--in fact, it is fundamentally incorrect English. You said correctly...
Brandon Stevens said:My understanding is that “every family” are who derive there names from the Father
...and thus the subject(s) of "derives" are the families. If "family" is the subject of "derives", then "whom derives its name" is actually not a thing at all. The second mistake is that "whom" can't be a subject of a relative clause because it is an objective form. That's why what you wrote is incorrect. The way I described it above is the correct breakdown and analysis.
One final consideration, which kind of combines the two "tricks": because prepositional phrases are "plug-and play" components of sentences that can be moved about to serve the needs of the writer/composer, they can also be removed entirely from the sentence and still leave a viable sentence structure (granted that the comprehension of what is being said may become muddy). To "get at" the core of any sentence, the first thing to do (*Step One*) is remove all prepositional phrases from the sentence. Once that has been done, you will either have a tight core or loose core, which will nearly always be much more easy to handle. Based on this important consideration, the first dependent clause (that is, the prepositional clause of verse 15) can be excised along with all of the prepositional phrases in order to derive the true "loose core". While the comment about the families and the comment about granting strength are both dependent clauses, they are not equally so. The details in the prepositional clause (about the families) are extraneous, having no direct bearing on the purpose of the independent clause that is addressing the fact of and reason for "bending". The details in the second dependent clause (verse 16) about "granting strength" on the other hand, are an instrumental component for explaining the reason and purpose of "bending" the knees. That is why I ignored the prepositional clause when I stated above that the loose core of the entire sentence (vv. 14-16) is "I bend my knees that He would grant you (to be strengthened)", which actually means "I pray that He would grant you (to be strengthened)". The "families" are totally beside the point.
Notice what the result of my strategy is below. The capped words are prepositions and the bold words are prep phrases; the entirety of v. 15 is a prep clause; once these unnecessary components are removed, what's left is the "loose core", which I have underlined.
14 FOR this reason I bend my knees BEFORE the Father 15 FROM whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name 16 that He would grant you, ACCORDING TO the riches OF His glory, to be strengthened WITH power THROUGH His Spirit IN the inner self.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:
Oops, sorry. Somehow I didn’t realize that Denise was DMB. She changed her username, right? I was thinking of DAL, even as I copied the right name.
Not a problem, Justin, and it's hard to keep track of who's posting. To be honest, I didn't catch it; I was impressed with your knowledge. Diagramming your sentence mentally, I associated the 'his' with Hegesippus (I suppose a minor few centuries off). And appreciate David catching it.
My comment on this post (and not being too linguistic-y), is that you'd really have to (1) do the diagramming in greek (or if OT, hebrew), and (2) do it relative to common usage at the time (since writers were communicating, often orally, even as then written).
0 -
David Paul said:
Brandon Stevens said:Brandon Stevens said:the “whom” are the “every family“ and are functioning adjectively answering the adjective questions “Which?” and “how many?” Therefore clarifying who the “whom“ are.
If you are correct, that would mean that "whom" is functioning as both the OBJECT of the preposition "from" and also as the SUBJECT of the verb "derives"?? It's been at least a dozen years since I last read a high school or college grammar just for fun, but I'm pretty sure that's impossible. One of those has to be incorrect, and it is inescapable that "whom" is "from's" object. I suggest you take seriously my suggestion above. There are two "tricks" that are helpful in reducing sentence complexity.
One is to pare a sentence down to its "core". There is a "tight" core (i.e. just the simple subject and simple predicate (verb), and a "loose" core, which is the tight core with a minimal few additional components that provide clarity. In the (actually imcomplete) sentence most recently under discussion (vv. 14-15), which consists of two clauses (of a longer sentence), the two tight cores are "I bend" and "family derives". In my first comment on this thread, where the whole sentence was presented (vv. 14-16), I identified the "loose core" of the entire sentence, which is "I bend my knees that He would grant you (to be strengthened)". The tight core would be "I bend that He would grant" (technically, this could be called a "loose" tight core, since "that" is included--the two tight cores are "I bend" and "He would grant"). For the sake of comprehension, you could add the word "so" after "bend", resulting in "I bend so that He would grant". The upshot is "I pray to elicit/motivate His granting (of strength)".
The second trick to simplifying a "churned" sentence is to restore it to its "standard" or normal form. Standard form consists of the compound subject at the front/beginning of the sentence and the compound predicate at the back/end of the sentence. Another aspect of standard form is that prepositional phrases follow the components they are describing. Any time a sentence (or clause) begins with a preposition, you have a non-standard form. Returning to the incomplete sentence addressed above (vv. 14-15), if we take it alone as a complex sentence, there are the two primary components, the independent clause and dependent clause. The independent clause is "For this reason I bend my knees before the Father", but this is not in standard form because it begins with a prepositional phrase. In standard form, it reads either as "I bend my knees for this reason before the Father" or "I bend my knees before the Father for this reason" depending on what style and nuance you wish to convey. Prepositional phrases are somewhat like plug-and-play components that you can insert anywhere in a sentence to adjust focus. Looking at the dependent clause, we have "from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name". Notice again, that this clause (i.e. sentence with seemingly "dependent" baggage), like the previous one, begins with a prepositional phrase, so it is in non-standard form. To put it in standard form, we unplug the prep phrase from the front and place it at the rear, resulting in "(E)very family in heaven and on earth derives it name from whom". "Whom" in this sentence is not interrogative, but rather relative. We could ask "to whom" does "whom" refer in this dependent clause?...but the proper way to deal with "whom" (because there is no question being asked in the sentence) is simply to assert the relationship (thus "relative" pronoun) that "whom" has to "the Father". This "dependent clause" is actually a prepositional clause, where the additonal information that's presented in the sentence "Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from..." is related to "the Father" from the previous (independant clause) sentence by means of the "glue" of the preposition "whom", which has "the Father" as its antecedent.
Brandon Stevens said:the “whom derives its name” is a relative clause which come to find out can be an object of a preposition
You are misunderstanding this concept on two fronts. First, "whom derives its name" is not a relative clause--in fact, it is fundamentally incorrect English. You said correctly...
Brandon Stevens said:My understanding is that “every family” are who derive there names from the Father
...and thus the subject(s) of "derives" are the families. If "family" is the subject of "derives", then "whom derives its name" is actually not a thing at all. The second mistake is that "whom" can't be a subject of a relative clause because it is an objective form. That's why what you wrote is incorrect. The way I described it above is the correct breakdown and analysis.
One final consideration, which kind of combines the two "tricks": because prepositional phrases are "plug-and play" components of sentences that can be moved about to serve the needs of the writer/composer, they can also be removed entirely from the sentence and still leave a viable sentence structure (granted that the comprehension of what is being said may become muddy). To "get at" the core of any sentence, the first thing to do (*Step One*) is remove all prepositional phrases from the sentence. Once that has been done, you will either have a tight core or loose core, which will nearly always be much more easy to handle. Based on this important consideration, the first dependent clause (that is, the prepositional clause of verse 15) can be excised along with all of the prepositional phrases in order to derive the true "loose core". While the comment about the families and the comment about granting strength are both dependent clauses, they are not equally so. The details in the prepositional clause (about the families) are extraneous, having no direct bearing on the purpose of the independent clause that is addressing the fact of and reason for "bending". The details in the second dependent clause (verse 16) about "granting strength" on the other hand, are an instrumental component for explaining the reason and purpose of "bending" the knees. That is why I ignored the prepositional clause when I stated above that the loose core of the entire sentence (vv. 14-16) is "I bend my knees that He would grant you (to be strengthened)", which actually means "I pray that He would grant you (to be strengthened)". The "families" are totally beside the point.
I re-worked the diagram once again and changed it from a relative clause to a noun clause. I checked “The Farlex Grammar Book Complete English Grammar Rules“ and “whom” is one of the words which commonly begin a noun clause. I hope it’s correct this time.
0 -
I added some additional detail to what I wrote above that you quoted, so you may want to look at that.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
I added some additional detail to what I wrote above that you quoted, so you may want to look at that.
I had a quick look over that additional detail you provided. it’s greatly appreciated. I would like ask also if you agree that it is a noun clause?
additionally, I agree with you 100% that the main point of Ephesians 3:14-16 is that Paul is bending his knee before the Father so that his readers may be strengthened by the Holy Spirit who dwells within them.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:
the main point of Ephesians 3:14-16 is that Paul is bending his knee
You realize that in Greek the sentence runs Ephesians 3:14-19?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Brandon Stevens said:
the main point of Ephesians 3:14-16 is that Paul is bending his knee
You realize that in Greek the sentence runs Ephesians 3:14-19?
I'm assuming this is for an assignment (why else would anyone do this?)...feel lucky you weren't assigned Eph. 1:3-14, which is one long run-on sentence of the sort for which Paulus is (in)famous. Both MJ and Denise make a good point. I have only addressed what you presented--three verses in English--while the most thorough process would address the entire sentence in the original Greek. I just assumed your assignment was limited to what you presented, but, of course, assumptions are fragile things.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
I'm assuming this is for an assignment
No school for adults that I know would use Kellogg-Reed rather than a tree diagram (as Logos does). However, I know a number of adults (including myself) who will sketch a Kellogg-Reed diagram when sorting out ambiguous syntax. Either way one must acknowledge the syntax of the original language even while diagramming the English.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Paul said:MJ. Smith said:Brandon Stevens said:
the main point of Ephesians 3:14-16 is that Paul is bending his knee
You realize that in Greek the sentence runs Ephesians 3:14-19?
I'm assuming this is for an assignment (why else would anyone do this?)...feel lucky you weren't assigned Eph. 1:3-14, which is one long run-on sentence of the sort for which Paulus is (in)famous. Both MJ and Denise make a good point. I have only addressed what you presented--three verses in English--while the most thorough process would address the entire sentence in the original Greek. I just assumed your assignment was limited to what you presented, but, of course, assumptions are fragile things.
My diagram isn't for an assignment but rather for personal English grammar study. I have no to engage with regularly who is more knowledgeable than I am regarding the Reed-Kellogg system of sentence diagraming, therefore, having no one to offer advice/corrections.
0 -
You might find this chiasm analysis useful Ephesians 3:14-21 | BIBLICAL CHIASM EXCHANGE (chiasmusxchange.com). Eph+3%2C14-21.png (1600×962) (bp.blogspot.com) gives you the original language diagram which should hint at the English version.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
You might find this chiasm analysis useful Ephesians 3:14-21 | BIBLICAL CHIASM EXCHANGE (chiasmusxchange.com). Eph+3%2C14-21.png (1600×962) (bp.blogspot.com) gives you the original language diagram which should hint at the English version.
thank you for sharing this. Apart from knowing a few Greek words I’m totally in the dark as to its grammar, however, I look forward to learning the original languages one day.
0 -
Brandon Stevens said:
Apart from knowing a few Greek words I’m totally in the dark as to its grammar, however, I look forward to learning the original languages one day.
One man's opinion: definitely put in the time to master (or approximate mastery of) your native language before venturing off into foreign tongues. Not saying you can't dabble in, peruse, and otherwise familiarize yourself with Hebrew and Greek, but until you have given the concept of "learning and following the rules" its due time and attention in the language in which you are conversant, the OLs are just rusty explosives waiting to take you out. I find myself more often than I like getting into debates and contentions with people in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movements, which are probably the closest things to where I am, due to the pathetic fact that there's so much tomfoolery and balderdash (that's as polite as I can put it) passing as knowledge of Hebrew, all clung to with a fealty that truly boggles my mind. The level of vociferous certainty that these people have in their faux-Hebrew easily crosses over into militancy. Almost all of them learned their Hebrew from either the internet or someone else who learned their Hebrew from the internet, with nary a soul among them that has ever held or explored a Hebrew grammar. It's really sad and disappointing. If I attempt to correct someone on a simple grammatic prinicple that's being blissfully ignored, I am instantly called a "know-nothing". If I point out that I've taken a year of university level Hebrew and quote a grammar to butress my point, I am suddenly called a "know-it-all". As shocking as it may be to hear, the headspace where these people dwell, refusing to hear any opposition regardless of evidentiary support, is the exact same space where the unpardonable sin lurks. So...don't go there. Learn the rules of English...solid. Then find legit sources of OL instruction. Resources in Logos are pretty safe, even though I've complained on occasion how frequently the resources just accept Modern Hebrew as the jumping off point. That's a frustrating issue, but it's not insane. DO NOT attempt to learn Hebrew on the internet. I suspect learning Greek is less fraught, but I'd be just as cautious.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Brandon Stevens said:
Apart from knowing a few Greek words I’m totally in the dark as to its grammar, however, I look forward to learning the original languages one day.
One man's opinion: definitely put in the time to master (or approximate mastery of) your native language before venturing off into foreign tongues. Not saying you can't dabble in, peruse, and otherwise familiarize yourself with Hebrew and Greek, but until you have given the concept of "learning and following the rules" its due time and attention in the language in which you are conversant, the OLs are just rusty explosives waiting to take you out. I find myself more often than I like getting into debates and contentions with people in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movements, which are probably the closest things to where I am, due to the pathetic fact that there's so much tomfoolery and balderdash (that's as polite as I can put it) passing as knowledge of Hebrew, all clung to with a fealty that truly boggles my mind. The level of vociferous certainty that these people have in their faux-Hebrew easily crosses over into militancy. Almost all of them learned their Hebrew from either the internet or someone else who learned their Hebrew from the internet, with nary a soul among them that has ever held or explored a Hebrew grammar. It's really sad and disappointing. If I attempt to correct someone on a simple grammatic prinicple that's being blissfully ignored, I am instantly called a "know-nothing". If I point out that I've taken a year of university level Hebrew and quote a grammar to butress my point, I am suddenly called a "know-it-all". As shocking as it may be to hear, the headspace where these people dwell, refusing to hear any opposition regardless of evidentiary support, is the exact same space where the unpardonable sin lurks. So...don't go there. Learn the rules of English...solid. Then find legit sources of OL instruction. Resources in Logos are pretty safe, even though I've complained on occasion how frequently the resources just accept Modern Hebrew as the jumping off point. That's a frustrating issue, but it's not insane. DO NOT attempt to learn Hebrew on the internet. I suspect learning Greek is less fraught, but I'd be just as cautious.
I haven't encountered much Messianic Judaism besides Dr Michael Brown, who is both a messianic Jew and Charismatic in his Theology, Hebrew roots I have watched Dr James White debate a Hebrew roots elder (insert air quotes). I plan on pursuing a bachelor's degree in theology in the future so I will learn the OLs than if sooner than I may self-learn via grammars recommend by experts in the languages or learn via here: https://www.biblicalmastery.academy/
0
