Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

[Roger Thornhill]

That’s a big “if.” “If” λόγος was a donkey before the Universe was created, etc....

Think like Paul. 1 Co 9:20.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

How many times does it have to be repeated? It’s insanity to argue that the Logos was with himself.

Why? John does it quite neatly, if you simply take what he says at face value.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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]

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]

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]

Why? John does it quite neatly, if you simply take what he says at face value.

Folks, there comes a point when one should just stop responding to the crazies (to a Herod, a Trump , etc.). I learnt this from Jesus himself:

αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You miss my point. Read the verse.

If you have a point spell it out. Not a fan of fortune cookie type non-responses.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Folks, there comes a point when one should just stop responding to the crazies (to a Herod, a Trump , etc.). I learnt this from Jesus himself:

You know, this is perhaps the best thing you've every said on any forum anywhere. I'll take that advice.

 

[The Real John Milton]

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]

In John 1:4 we find η ζωή ην το φως, the life was the light.

This appears to falsify the claim/rule that one can not determine the subject if both terms are articular.

@Gryllus Maior
@John Milton
@The Real John Milton

Where did this "claim/rule" come from?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Where did this "claim/rule" come from?

@Gryllus Maior quoted Smyth on predicate nouns having the article to identify the subject. Search on Smyth where he posted.

 

[John Milton]

@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]

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

 

[John Milton]

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

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

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.