[b-greek] Re: theos and ho theos'--

From: GregStffrd@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 03 2001 - 21:52:40 EST

In a message dated 03/03/2001 5:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
musicke@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< Who are these "most scholars?" Sounds hard to prove, to me.
 The idea of the Word being "with God" and being "God" is a problem for some
 theological systems, but not a problem at all for others.
 David McKay >>

They are so numerous and so outspoken about the subject, even on this very
List, that I cannot help but suggest that you consider nearly any recent
commentary, grammar, or other publication that discusses John 1:1, and you
will discover what has been happening for about 25 years now.

Also, my book gives numerous references, one of which is Paul Dixon's thesis.
See Wallace's Grammar, Harner's JBL article, and, again, just about any other
recent work on the subject.

But it is quite easy to prove that there is a clear grammatical difficulty in
accepting QEOS in 1:1c as definite and then accepting what is said in 1:1b,
that the LOGOS is PROS TON QEON. If you don't perceive a difficulty, well,
what can I say? But please do not expect some of us, Trinitarian,
non-Trinitarian, and other faiths, to just pretend there is no grammatical
problem with that kind of situation.

Since it appears we have exhausted the main grammatical points, unless
something changes and fresh grammatical issues are advanced, I will leave
this thread alone from this point forward.


B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:52 EDT