From: GregStffrd@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 03 2001 - 21:58:59 EST
In a message dated 03/03/2001 6:51:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dwashbur@nyx.net writes:
<< Exactly. Contrary to what Greg said, the problem is theological,
not grammatical. >>
I have outlined my grammatical concerns and added nothing of a theological
tone. None of the grammatical problems associated with claiming that QEOS in
1:1c is definite have been met on a grammatical level, so I am exiting the
discussion of that point. If you have some grammatical response that might be
beneficial for us to explore, then present it. Otherwise, I agree entirely
with Paul and others in _outlining_ and _rejecting_ QEOS in 1:1c as a
definite PN, due to the obvious _grammatical_ problems it presents. For
details, see my previous posts and Paul's recent posts.
Greg
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:52 EDT