> Alan Feuerbacher's complaint that Wallace is ignoring the facts is a bad
> case of begging the question, because it depends upon our acceptance of his
> view of the passages in question as opposed to Wallace's. To have any basis
> for argument at all, Feuerbacher needs to find a few *ordinary*,
> non-controversial examples of first- or second-person historical presents,
> which (at least for the first person) could very well exist in relevant
> non-biblical literature, though I wouldn't bet against Dan as to his
> conclusions about the Bible itself. To insist that Wallace's "omission" is
> deliberate and unscholarly is even more fallacious than the grammatical
> basis of Feuerbacher's complaint, and downright insulting. Do yourself a
> favor, Alan, and--if you haven't already--take it all back before the dust
Alan's statements were made on another Email list where critcism (in
the search for truth) is encouraged... and sometimes it gets pretty
downright personal (but only because that person is truly expressing
their own *feelings*).
When Alan agreed to have his criticisms of Wallace's Grammar
taken to this list, I myself posted what he'd said from the other list...
without realising the differences in format (and basically without
I have disagreed with Alan on this matter, but frankly admit that he
has his own opinions and is rightfully entitled to them. Whatever
his personal feelings may be, he has not said anything against
Wallace (personally) on *this* list because he only wants to debate
the *facts*. I know Alan, and believe that his *real* concern on this
list is ... What is Grammatically possible?
I appreciate the fact that you yourself, majored on the grammatical
considerations in this matter (rather than on someone's personal
Thank you for your post.
Quest for Truth at...