Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You might have a point if the grammars didn't point to a more natural interpretation.

I don't think you get this from reading lots of different Greek sources.

The natural reading is to take it in a normal fashion. If it were not for theology you would see the text much differently.

That's not context, it's pretext.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Think like Paul. 1 Co 9:20.

We're dealing with apostle John, not "Paul," and the Gospel of John was not intended just for a specific cultural audience, namely the Hellenistic.

The term λόγος is used about 311 times in the GNT (including by apostle Paul), how many times does it refer to a pre-existing Divine, non-human "person" ? Biblical words must be given biblical definitions.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
We're dealing with apostle John, not "Paul," and the Gospel of John was not intended just for a specific cultural audience, namely the Hellenistic.

The term λόγος is used about 311 times in the GNT (including by apostle Paul), how many times does it refer to a pre-existing Divine, non-human "person" ? Biblical words must be given biblical definitions.

You miss my point. Read the verse.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You might have a point if the grammars didn't point to a more natural interpretation.
What could "And the Word was facing Himself" possibly mean, even if the grammar allowed for it ?

I don't think you get this from reading lots of different Greek sources.

Good point.


The natural reading is to take it in a normal fashion. If it were not for theology you would see the text much differently.

Agreed.

That's not context, it's pretext.

He reads the Scriptures from a Trinitarian a priori. He thinks his study of Attic somehow gives him the tools necessary to get away with twisting certain verses of the Koine of the GNT to a Trinitarian perspective with impunity and with privilege. It's a fool's errand , but he engages in it pretty confidently , all the while thinking himself wise for doing so.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Anyone who listens to the Word ( ὁ λόγος) but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror, much like the fool who thinks the Word was facing himself in John 1:1b --

ὅτι εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ·

James 1:23
 

John Milton

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior quoted Smyth on predicate nouns having the article to identify the subject. Search on Smyth where he posted.
I just performed a search for "Smyth" and read every post from Gryllus in the results, and I did not see him say that "that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular." Would you please show it to me? I may have missed it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I just performed a search for "Smyth" and read every post from Gryllus in the results, and I did not see him say that "that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular." Would you please show it to me? I may have missed it.

I paraphrased. Did you see this one?


Post in thread 'Question for Roger concerning John 1:1c'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-for-roger-concerning-john-1-1c.1162/post-74662

In response to
Post in thread 'Question for Roger concerning John 1:1c'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-for-roger-concerning-john-1-1c.1162/post-74619
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I saw that one, but he doesn't say anything there about not being able to identify subjects with two articular nouns.

You are a known nit picker of words. If cricket has a problem with what we discussed like this he can bring it up with me.

I have no interest in having you inserted into our discussion.

Now, if you want to make an exegetical point, I am listening.

@Gryllus Maior
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I saw that one, but he doesn't say anything there about not being able to identify subjects with two articular nouns.

Here is where @Gryllus Maior takes issue with that statement.

Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-86480

He says "no it doesn't" to "This appears to falsify the claim/rule that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular."
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You are a known nit picker of words. If cricket has a problem with what we discussed like this he can bring it up with me.

I have no interest in having you inserted into our discussion.

Now, if you want to make an exegetical point, I am listening.

@Gryllus Maior
My point is that you, once again, appear to have falsely accused someone of saying something they have not said. In academic or legal domains, this can have serious consequences. I don't know why you think it is a trivial thing to misrepresent others.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
My point is that you, once again, appear to have falsely accused someone of saying something they have not said. In academic or legal domains, this can have serious consequences. I don't know why you think it is a trivial thing to misrepresent others.


You are a known nit picker of words. If cricket has a problem with what we discussed like this he can bring it up with me.

I have no interest in having you inserted into our discussion.

Now, if you want to make an exegetical point, I am listening.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Here is where @Gryllus Maior takes issue with that statement.

Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-86480

He says "no it doesn't" to "This appears to falsify the claim/rule that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular."
It is not at all clear from this what he was objecting to. Besides this, the statement was made AFTER your claim, which you still have no evidence for.
 
Top