From: William B. Steidtmann (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 25 1999 - 15:03:02 EST
Based on the example of John 6:51 I must assume that the extent and
qualifications of the "law" in question has been misunderstood.
The basic grammatical form necessary is:
p1 - v1 - n2
(and hidden n1)
p1 = Pronoun that replaces hidden Noun n1
v1 = Verb substantive "to be"
n2 = Noun (can include modifiers)
The gender of n1 and n2 must differ.
Conclusions to be reached based on the form:
If the gender of p1 follows that of n1, then
the statement is to be taken literally.
If the gender of p1 follows that of n2, then
the statement is to be taken figuratively.
Of further note is the possibility that in the first case where p1
follows n1, the verb will often be omitted entirely to form an ellipsis,
thereby emphasizing the literalness of the statement.
Using this formula we can see that the usages of the Greek word ARTOS
found in John 6:51 do not qualify them for consideration under the
I would be especially interested in any examples that would show the
supposed law to fail; at this point I have none.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:18 EDT