Guelich, on p 125 says WSTE
". . . introduces a result clause that connects 2:28 syntactically with
2:27. Therefore, to take 2:28 as a summary of 2:23-27 . . . or even the
larger context of 2:1-26 . . . is to ignore the logic and syntax of 'so
that' in 2:28 which results from the content of 2:27."
Can anyone show me evidence to the contrary? That is, can you show
specific references (not assertions from lexicons) where WSTE functions
in the way Guelich asserts it cannot?
Mark