[b-greek] Re: hO QEOS in Phil. 3:19

From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 14:39:03 EST


On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:37:14 -0600 Steve Lovullo
<SLovullo@etcconnect.com> writes:
>
> As I pointed out in my first post, the articles seem to be what
> would
> customarily be used to signify possession. I fail to see how this
> necessarily identifies one with the other "to the exclusion of all
> else." If
> I say "my computer is my friend," this in no way suggests that my
> computer
> is my only friend to the exclusion of all other friends, or that my
> computer
> is ONLY my friend and nothing else. Would we say that because their
> belly is
> their God it therefore is NOT also their means of processing food?
> It seems
> that any number of things could be predicated about their belly. How
> would
> this constitute their belly as being ONLY their God "to the
> exclusion of all
> else?"

It seems to beg the question to say the articles are used to signify
possession. If so, then the question still remains: why does he use the
articles to signify possession? In other words, what would be the
significance if he had used AUTWN ... AUTWN?

The argument still carries: their god is their belly, being identical
to, their belly is their god. Its the same as saying, all A is B, and all
B is A. The exclusion would be all non-A is non-B and vice versa. That
is all I am saying, not denying that their stomach also processes food.

Paul Dixon

---
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 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:13 EST