Date: Thu Oct 05 1995 - 19:59:05 EDT
In a message dated 95-10-05 10:15:10 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul
Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church) writes:
>To argue that an anarthrous noun is definite in a context where it occurs
>earlier with the article may be a begging of the question. How does one,
>then, explain the significance of the repeated use of the article (e.g.,
>the anaphoric article)? Furthermore, how would the author express a
>qualitative force of the noun, if it already occurred with the article?
>Certainly, your appealing to John 1:1 as an example is way off base.
>The qualitative force of theos in 1:1c is far preferrable to
>definiteness, as that would equate the Logos to God the Father (1:1b).
>Do not appeal to Colwell's Rule here, as its application here has been
>shown to be incorrect.
Paul, you must not read into people's answer. I did not say that the
succeeding NOMOS was "definite." Neither was I saying that the succeeding
THEOS in John 1:1 was "definite." I was merely showing the practice of Koine
Greek to use the article and then commonly leave it off of successive
occurrence's in the same context, to which you will find good backing in A.T.
Robertson's grammar. The succeeding references are defined or identified by
the predecessor. All words are defined by their context and this is one of
the KEY ways to accurately see the context. And if you will study the
context of Romans 3:19-20 you will see this practice.
I find the remarks which belittle to be distasteful and lacking scholarship.
You fail to show any conclusive proof for your view against what I said.
And you read into the person's response without carefully considering what
he said. You are not the only one to do this. I only wish to bring us all
together so we can support one another and sharpen one another peacefully as
Christ would have wanted us to do.
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT