I don't think the comment is about the specific point at hand but rather more generally about the rejection of the principle, nanos gigantum humeris insidentes, for Greek.David Lim wrote:Well what do you say? Do you disagree with anything I said about the genitive phrase?MAubrey wrote:That's not surprising.David Lim wrote:At least to me it doesn't matter what Robertson said.
Convertible propositions (John 1:4)
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)
Sorry I don't know what you both are talking about then. Since people don't even agree on what they interpret Robertson to mean, I can't see why we can't just focus on the facts and not argue about what he meant. After all, the facts don't depend on whether we interpret Robertson correctly, and I don't want to misinterpret Robertson. You said earlier that you don't think Robertson was implying that the genitive phrase could be shifted around, but yet you didn't say at all whether you thought it could be or not.Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't think the comment is about the specific point at hand but rather more generally about the rejection of the principle, nanos gigantum humeris insidentes, for Greek.David Lim wrote:Well what do you say? Do you disagree with anything I said about the genitive phrase?
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)
Time to lock this topic. I think we're well past productive discussion at this point, and I'd like to keep the Beginner's Forum beginner-friendly.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/