theos and ho theos'--

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Sat Mar 3 21:58:59 EST 2001


In a message dated 03/03/2001 6:51:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
dwashbur at nyx.net writes:

<< Exactly.  Contrary to what Greg said, the problem is theological, 
 not grammatical.  >>


I have outlined my grammatical concerns and added nothing of a theological 
tone. None of the grammatical problems associated with claiming that QEOS in 
1:1c is definite have been met on a grammatical level, so I am exiting the 
discussion of that point. If you have some grammatical response that might be 
beneficial for us to explore, then present it. Otherwise, I agree entirely 
with Paul and others in _outlining_ and _rejecting_ QEOS in 1:1c as a 
definite PN, due to the obvious _grammatical_ problems it presents. For 
details, see my previous posts and Paul's recent posts. 

Greg



More information about the B-Greek mailing list