Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Granville Sharps rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Thank you for the acknowledgment.

    There is no real language skill without fluency and proficiency.

    When a non-English speaker tries to be an English corrector, the results are quite humorous.

    We have watched you attempting to demonstrate these supposed superior skills. I will take the classical commentaries and beliefs over your convoluted exegetical attempts every day.

    However, I am not continually mangling the historic and excellent English Bible text with atomistic grammatical attempts (such as trying to partially rehabilitate the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.)

    Steven
    Quite right. You have an entirely different set of errors and follies which you continually advocate under the guise of erudition which you don't possess.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter
      edit .
      Actually, for one topic, EDIT DO not discuss posters by nameis right. EDIT DO not discuss posters by name should not be making ad hoc comments about Greek word order and hashy.

      EDIT DO not discuss posters by name may be very weak in certain types of logic an analysis, but he surely can write Greek and Latin sentences that are acceptable.

      EDIT DO not discuss posters by name tries to talk about my supposed "errors and follies" but really offers nothing of substance. He really is a jellyfish when it comes to issues like the bogus attempt to put forth a "Granville Sharp Rule" (which is this thread.)

      And I was thinking he might contribute substantively about the possessive adjective point I shared above,. However EDIT DO not discuss posters by name generally does not do substance in our conversations. He is actually capable of five attempted side-swipes without one note of substance.

      It is true that I work at an advantage. Generally I am defending an English text that was compiled in a corroboration of 50 world-class scholars, totally fluent in the languages, and that came from the superb Received Text. So it is often very easy to deal with the critics.

      Steven
      Last edited by Mod8; 12-08-17, 10:35 PM. Reason: quote box & personal discussions

      Comment


      • Silly rant attack post reported. (CARM has specifically said that you can tell some one a post is reported, no lecturing though.)

        Plus, if you purport to quote me and CARM rules require the post link. Please remove any purported quotes that are not linked, if you still have edit time.

        =======

        Now to return to Titus 2:13 and the Granville Sharp “Rule” for Fools.

        Post being prepared on laptop, continuing with the word order and possessive adjective issues, I found one writer who makes salient points. You can easily see that the AV and Geneva give you simply the natural and fluid English expression of the Greek text. And the Sharpite formulations are convoluted and jumbled.

        There really never should even have been a translational question, other than “glorious appearance” or “appearance of the glory.”. Even at the time of the AV you saw both phrases.

        Steven
        Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-08-17, 06:19 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          Silly rant attack post reported. (CARM has specifically said that you can tell some one a post is reported, no lecturing though.)

          Plus, if you purport to quote me and CARM rules require the post link. Please remove any purported quotes that are not linked, if you still have edit time.

          =======

          Now to return to Titus 2:13 and the Granville Sharp “Rule” for Fools.

          Post being prepared on laptop, continuing with the word order and possessive adjective issues, I found one writer who makes salient points. You can easily see that the AV and Geneva give you simply the natural and fluid English expression of the Greek text. And the Sharpite formulations are convoluted and jumbled.

          There really never should even have been a translational question, other than “glorious appearance” or “appearance of the glory.”. Even at the time of the AV you saw both phrases.

          Steven
          You are right. There never should have been a translation question. Jesus is the one who "loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us a kings and priests unto God his father." Additionally, all of these early translations agree that the "αὐτῷ" that follows the TSKS construction refers to Jesus. Tyndale especially makes this clear. Your reading comprehension in English needs improvement.

          Wycliffe's Translation
          4 Joon to seuene chirchis, that ben in Asie, grace and pees to you, of him that is, and that was, and that is to comynge; and of the seuene spiritis, that ben in the siyt of his trone; and of Jhesu Crist,
          5 that is a feithful witnesse, the firste bigetun of deed men, and prince of kingis of the erthe; which louyde vs, and waischide vs fro oure synnes in his blood
          6 and made vs a kyngdom, and preestis to God and his fader; to hym be glorie and empire in to worldis of worldis.

          Tyndale
          5 and from Jesus Christ which is a faythfull witnes and fyrst begotte of the deed: and Lorde over the kinges of the erth. Vnto him that loved vs and wesshed vs fro synnes in his awne bloud
          6 and made vs kinges and Prestes vnto God his father be glory and dominion for ever more. Amen.

          Geneva
          5 And from Jesus Christ, which is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the Kings of the earth, unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood,
          6 And made us Kings and Priests unto God even his Father, to him be glory and dominion for evermore. Amen.

          King James Version
          5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
          6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

          Comment


          • Now let us return to Titus 2:13 and the GSR. Gregory Blunt is often underestimated in his early critique of Sharp.
            Gregory Blunt is likely the pen name for Thomas Pearne (c. 1753-1827)

            Titus 2:13
            Looking for that blessed hope,
            and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


            προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
            It appears then, from what has been said, that the text contains two proper names, God and Jesus. Each of these is attended by its appropriate description. To the one is prefixed the epithet of great, or mighty ; and to the other is prefixed, in like manner and situation, the corresponding epithet of our saviour. The sentence, therefore, naturally and obviously, divides itself into two parts; and the structure of it plainly points out two distinct and separate beings. p. 88

            Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. on His Remarks Upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament (1803)
            Gregory Blunt
            https://books.google.com/books?id=obJWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA88
            This is clear and sound.
            Blunt also discusses how God must be a proper name, not an appellative, in p. 86-87. A good read.

            Then on p. 89 he discusses the problems with the first adjectives placement in the Sharp construction, how it would really mean including the very unlikely "great Saviour". The two nouns are being grouped with one adjectival description of Jesus Christ, then Great should apply to both, and great is never applied to Saviour.
            For if, according to your mode of construing, the two nouns θεοῦ and (Gr-Saviour) be understood as descriptive appellations of one and the same person, then, as I have shewn you, when I investigated the nature of your general form for such expressions, the article which precedes the first noun must be supplied by ellipsis before the second. But the idiom of the language, if we would follow the natural and obvious construction, requires, that when we bring forward the article from the first noun to the second, we should also bring forward whatever intervenes between that article and the first noun, that is, in this case, the adjective great. But that adjective is altogether inapplicable to the second noun, Saviour, and cannot be construed with it. Nay, the word saviour is never found throughout the New Testament accompanied with any adjective whatever. These two nouns, therefore, God and saviour, are not here intended to be descriptions of one and the same being. p. 88-89
            One really interesting part follows when he looks at the possessive adjective our, my point above.
            The position of ἡμῶν also militates against your interpretation. For though it may, in such a situation, be construed with both, and often is so construed, yet the most obvious and natural construction is to restrict and confine it to the noun to which it is immediately annexed, unless something forbids, or points out a different construction. And here there is nothing to forbid, but your fanciful, unfounded theory' of the article. p. 89
            And if our is naturally and properly placed with Saviour, the whole Granville Sharp attempt falls apart, as it is acting with the sense of a definite article.

            The next one is style and consistency:
            The order of the words is likewise against your interpretation. For if the two nouns were both intended to describe the greatness of Jesus’s person, it is natural to suppose the writer would rise in his description ; but here, on the contrary, he sinks. It is an anti-climax. There is also an odd mixture of a metaphysical description, God, with one that is moral, saviour. p. 89
            The section continues with additional excellent material, including Erasmus.

            All of the word order and related issues are rather easy to understand, and all support the natural flow of the text as in the AV.
            I tend to think that no one has improved on the Gregory Blunt material on this topic.

            Titus 2:13
            Looking for that blessed hope,
            and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


            ===========================

            The reference to Samuel Clarke contra Nelson goes back to 1714, way before the Sharp nonsense of trying to make a "rule".

            A Reply to the Objections of Robert Nelson, Esq: And of an Anonymous Author [i.e. James Knight] Against Dr. Clarke's Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. Being a Commentary Upon Forty Select Texts of Scripture. To which is Added, An Answer to the Remarks of the Author Of, Some Considerations Concerning the Trinity, and the Ways of Managing that Controversy (1714)
            Samuel Clarke
            https://books.google.com/books?id=BhstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA85


            Blunt defers to Clarke's p. 85-89 for more New Testament style discussion of how the apostles writer of God and Lord and Christ.

            Steven Avery
            Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-08-17, 07:39 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
              You are right. There never should have been a translation question. Jesus is the one who "loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us a kings and priests unto God his father." Additionally, all of these early translations agree that the "αὐτῷ" that follows the TSKS construction refers to Jesus. Tyndale especially makes this clear. Your reading comprehension in English needs improvement.
              Actually if any refresher is needed, you need the course.

              On Revelation 1:6 my posts were defending "God and his Father" (and I even mentioned the virgin birth, which of course refers to Jesus) while Jameson was saying that it was a "fact" that the his should be in front of God. (Jameson dropped out of the discussion when that was challenged.)

              Try rereading the thread.

              Oh, and my comment about "translation question" was about Titus 2:13.

              Steven
              Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-08-17, 07:40 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                Actually you need a course.

                On Revelation 1:6 my posts were defending "God and his Father", (and I even mentioned the virgin birth, which of course refers to Jesus) while Jameson was saying that it was a "fact" that the his should be in front of God. (Jameson dropped out of the discussion when that was challenged.)

                Try rereading the thread.

                Oh, and my comment about "translation question" was about Titus 2:13.
                Again, start over.

                Steven

                EDIT DO not discuss posters by nameIt popped up and I read the current parts where you are arguing over where to put "his." They both refer to the same person. It doesn't matter where you put "his." The entity in question is same. You are defending the obvious with a ridiculous argument. I and others have already explained that to you. These early versions of the Bible should make all this plain to you.

                And it doesn't matter which verse you were referring to. If your measure doesn't hold up in Rev. 1:6, it doesn't hold up in the other either. EDIT Divisive
                Last edited by Mod8; 12-08-17, 10:39 PM. Reason: personal comment & Divisive content

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  Actually, for one topic, Barry Hofstetter is right. John Milton should not be making ad hoc comments about Greek word order and hashy.

                  Barry Hofstetter may be very weak in certain types of logic an analysis, but he surely can write Greek and Latin sentences that are acceptable.

                  Hofstetter tries to talk about my supposed "errors and follies" but really offers nothing of substance. He really is a jellyfish when it comes to issues like the bogus attempt to put forth a "Granville Sharp Rule" (which is this thread.)

                  And I was thinking he might contribute substantively about the possessive adjective point I shared above,. However Barry generally does not do substance in our conversations. He is actually capable of five attempted side-swipes without one note of substance.

                  It is true that I work at an advantage. Generally I am defending an English text that was compiled in a corroboration of 50 world-class scholars, totally fluent in the languages, and that came from the superb Received Text. So it is often very easy to deal with the critics.

                  Steven
                  I did not say that his Greek sentence is not “”acceptable”” but that it has hashy word order, by Biblical standards.

                  Comment


                  • Ezra Abbot mentions that Benedict Winter pointed out how "our" makes the Saviour definite. (Remember, Wallace attacks Winer rather unfairly, in a bogeyman approach to the historical analysis.)

                    "σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν (Winer)"

                    On the construction of Titus ii. 13 (1888)
                    Ezra Abbot

                    https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA452
                    And thus if the trailing noun is definite, the identity translation of the GSR fails, it is as if there were in fact two definite articles. (Another exception, ho-hum.)

                    Abbot, after discussing a couple of examples, also gives a classic quote that could be one sentence that simply ends the controversy.

                    But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects connected by καὶ is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to conceive of them as united in some common relation, while the repetition of the article would present them to the mind as distinct objects of thought.
                    Simple enough.
                    The end of the Granville Sharp Rule charade.

                    Even in Titus 2:13, one of the last two verses where anybody tries to place in a Sharpite text, a simple look at the verse shows you that the AV text was pure, simple, consistent and flows directly from the Greek.

                    Remember, the purpose of Sharp was supposedly to correct the AV text, verses which he said were "wrongly translated in the Common English Versions", but instead he just gave us mangling.

                    Steven
                    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-08-17, 10:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                      I did not say that his Greek sentence is not “”acceptable”” but that it has hashy word order, by Biblical standards.
                      You just ADDED that prepositional phrase in his evening's post to your original post.
                      What shall we think of that?
                      MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                      1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                      2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                      3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                      4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                        Ezra Abbot mentions that Benedict Winter pointed out how "our" makes the Saviour definite. (Remember, Wallace attacks Winer rather unfairly, in a bogeyman approach to the historical analysis.)
                        "σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν (Winer)"

                        On the construction of Titus ii. 13 (1888)
                        Ezra Abbot

                        https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA452
                        And thus if the trailing noun is definite, the identity translation of the GSR fails, it is as if there were in fact two definite articles. (Another exception, ho-hum.)
                        The Winer quote can be seen here:
                        A Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament (1840)
                        Georg Benedikt Winer
                        translated by John Holmes Agnew, O . G. Ebbeke
                        Omission of the Article with Nouns

                        https://archive.org/stream/agrammari...ch/TIt+II%3A13
                        https://books.google.com/books?id=c7JNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA111

                        "the article is omitted before .. because the word is limited by the genitive and the apposition is before the proper name: of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" p. 111
                        Only after that does Winer add the doctrinal and NT style note, which is quite excellent.

                        Steven Avery
                        Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-09-17, 09:13 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Additional points about the Winer note:

                          ====================================

                          Sidenote: Daniel Wallace did not mention this grammatical point in attacking Winer, Wallace was echoing a previous Winer bogey-man attack by A. T. Robertson. In fact he says that Winer "advances no real grammatical arguments" which is obviously untrue.

                          Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule (2004)
                          Daniel Wallace

                          https://bible.org/article/sharp-redi...rule#_ftnref35

                          In fact, he had the grammatical text from Winer in his own 1882 reference:

                          A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis (1882)
                          Georg Benedikt Winer - translated by W. F. Moulton - 3rd edition revised

                          https://books.google.com/books?id=i7kC8UOe-4cC&pg=PA162

                          Wallace even has the strong grammatical point on the very page he footnotes:
                          35 G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. and rev. W. F. Moulton, 3d ed., rev. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882) 162.

                          ====================================

                          Winer also makes an important point on p. 107 (in the 1840 edition) about Lord almost being a proper noun in the NT, which is yet another aspect of explaining the omission of the noun in some GSR verses:
                          κύριος which, in the Evangelists, usually signifies God (the O. T. Lord, comp. Thilo. Apocr. I. p. 169.), but in the Epistles, especially of Paul, when the style of Christianity more prevailed, most frequently Christ, the Lord of the Church, wants the article as often as θεός, particularly when it depends on a preposition, as in the common formula (Grk). It has almost become a proper name.
                          ====================================

                          Steven Avery
                          Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-09-17, 09:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                            Ezra Abbot mentions that Benedict Winter pointed out how "our" makes the Saviour definite. (Remember, Wallace attacks Winer rather unfairly, in a bogeyman approach to the historical analysis.)

                            And thus if the trailing noun is definite, the identity translation of the GSR fails, it is as if there were in fact two definite articles. (Another exception, ho-hum.)

                            Abbot, after discussing a couple of examples, also gives a classic quote that could be one sentence that simply ends the controversy.

                            Simple enough.
                            The end of the Granville Sharp Rule charade.

                            Even in Titus 2:13, one of the last two verses where anybody tries to place in a Sharpite text, a simple look at the verse shows you that the AV text was pure, simple, consistent and flows directly from the Greek.

                            Remember, the purpose of Sharp was supposedly to correct the AV text, verses which he said were "wrongly translated in the Common English Versions", but instead he just gave us mangling.

                            Steven
                            This explanation that I have highlighted above isn't true. If it were, the TSKS construction in Rev. 1:6 would be referring to two people, but it isn't. You haven't addressed this obvious point at all yet and it is fatal to your case. The best you can do is say that the translation may go either way, but your presuppositions won't allow that, will they?
                            Last edited by CL4P-TP; 12-09-17, 03:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                              This explanation that I have highlighted above isn't true. If it were, the TSKS construction in Rev. 1:6 would be referring to two people, but it isn't. You haven't addressed this obvious point at all yet and it is fatal to your case. The best you can do is say that the translation may go either way, but your presuppositions won't allow that, will they?
                              The context was Titus 2:13. If there were a definite article before the Saviour, there would be no case to try for a Granville Sharp rule.

                              Titus 2:13
                              Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


                              alternate - based on a theorized Greek that has a definite article before the trailing noun.
                              Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ;


                              You could still possibly think of it in an identity manner, if it fit the context. However, it would be outside the scope of the Granville Sharp construction since there is no omitted article. The "our" similarly functions in a way that should take it out of the Granville Sharp construction. There is no construction "the our Saviour", the possessive adjective is functioning to make it definite already.

                              Jameson mentioned a construction like: "the Great God and Saviour of us" but then you would place a definite article before the Saviour to harmonize the definiteness. "the Great God and the Saviour of us" or you would add something like "the Great God, (who is) the Saviour of us." However that is all rather off the beaten path, since it makes us an object pronoun, and does not flow like a possessive adjective.

                              CL4P, you spend too much effort trying to mind-read, rather than simply understand. And I do hope that this makes it clearer for you. Please understand there was no issue on Rev 1:6 as to whether there is one being or two involved, the issue was one of possessive adjective placement, and it was used for the analogy with Titus 2:13, no more, no less.

                              Steven
                              Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-09-17, 04:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                                The context was Titus 2:13. If there were a definite article before the Saviour, there would be no case to try for a Granville Sharp rule.
                                There is no article, so the Granville Sharp rule applies.

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery
                                Titus 2:13
                                Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


                                alternate - based on a theorized Greek that has a definite article before the trailing noun.
                                Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ;
                                Beyond the absurdity of your proposal of an alternate reality, your second version isn't a viable translation. You did not translate ἡμῶν.

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery
                                You could still possibly think of it in an identity manner, if it fit the context. However, it would be outside the scope of the Granville Sharp construction since there is no omitted article.
                                The text does not have the article. Are you using a variant text? Surely you don't think that a pronoun can stand in for an article or vice-versa! If this is what you have been trying to prove, you have not begun to make a case for it. (And to be honest, it can't be done. But feel free to try.)

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery
                                The "our" similarly functions in a way that should take it out of the Granville Sharp construction. There is no construction "the our Saviour", the possessive adjective is functioning to make it definite already.
                                It didn't function in this way to take it out of the Granville Sharp construction in Rev. 1:6. That text referred to the same individual despite having a pronoun in the second half of the construction. Τhe principle you have proposed to explain Titus 2:13 doesn't explain what is happening in Rev. 1:6. Besides that if Paul were wanting to write the construction as you have proposed it, he would write τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμων as he does in Titus 1:4. There is no reason that he could not have done so. If the pronoun alone with the word savior were enough to function for the article, why did Paul feel the need to use it in Titus 1:4? Your explanation is no good. You start by proposing an alternative that doesn't exist (an imagined article), and then give a rule that is demonstrably false.

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery
                                Jameson mentioned a construction like: "the Great God and Saviour of us" but then you would place a definite article before the Saviour to harmonize the definiteness. "the Great God and the Saviour of us" or you would add something like "the Great God, (who is) the Saviour of us." However that is all rather off the beaten path, since it makes us an object pronoun, and does not flow like a possessive adjective.
                                It was good enough for the translators of the KJV in places like Galatians 4:26: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Ultimately, though, you haven't given a good reason as to why it couldn't be done this way other than it doesn't suit your fancy.

                                Originally posted by Steven Avery
                                CL4P, you spend too much effort trying to mind-read, rather than simply understand. And I do hope that this makes it clearer for you. Please understand there was no issue on Rev 1:6 as to whether there is one being or two involved, the issue was one of possessive adjective placement, and it was used for the analogy with Titus 2:13, no more, no less.
                                You are too funny. Doesn't your claim that I am attempting to read minds require you to be a mind reader? I understand your intent, I think. But I don't care if you think these verses are unrelated. They are and here is why: If the Granville Sharp Rule holds 100% of the time, both Rev. 1:6 and Titus 2:13 are clear statements that Jesus is God. Right? If Rev. 1:6 refers to the same person, there is no reason that Tit. 2:13 cannot be referring to the same person since the same grammar is involved in both passages. Right? In regards to Rev. 1:6, you haven't disputed my claim that the authors of the early English translations all had made the "αὐτῷ" following the TSKS construction refer to Jesus. Does this mean you don't dispute that point? (This last one is a side issue that I am simply curious about.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X