|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2016 10:33:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2016 10:33:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2016 10:35:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2016 10:49:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2016 10:50:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2016 18:03:57 GMT -5
Xx
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2018 6:02:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 28, 2018 11:21:05 GMT -5
METZER & COLWELLThe insertion of an indefinite article may legitimately be done if the context permits it, however whether the context demands is to a degree a matter of opinion and opinions evidently differ in this regard. You refer to the conclusion of Professor Metzer, but it should be noted the article he wrote on the subject*, that one of the reasons he presents for the rejection of the indefinite article in John 1:1c is that it would essentially be theological unacceptable. This is rather like concluding that your husband could not have murdered someone because that would mean you had married a man that was capable of murder. * The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ:A Biblical and Theological Appraisal, Theology Today 10/1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85.Apart from this theological argument Metzer seems to base his conclusion that the indefinite article should not be added in this instance, on what has come to be known as "Colwell’s rule". I am not a Greek scholar, but it seems evident from your posting, neither are you, so we will both have to turn to those that are, to comment on the above. The following quotations are therefore of interest: "This is not to say that his [Colwell's] rule is invalid. Rather, it is to say that its validity is for TEXTUAL CRITICISM rather than for grammar. Textual criticism was Colwell's real love anyway (he is frequently regarded as the father of modern American NT textual criticism). The rule's validity for textual criticism is as follows: If it is obvious that a pre-verbal PN is definite, the MSS that lack the article are more likely to support the original reading. The issue of meaning is not in view; rather, the presence or absence of the article is." -- Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B Wallace, page 260, ftn. 18 [emphasis mine] "Colwell (1933:13) states, 'A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.' [...] The problem in applying the Colwell rule is to determine when the predicate nominative is definite. The rule itself does not establish the definiteness of a noun, an observation sometimes ignored when applying it to John 1:1. We have already mentioned that monadic and proper nouns are definite. The same applies to nouns qualified with a genitive. Colwell notes that proper names in the predicate regularly do not have the article. Other examples of the Colwell rule include Matthew 13:37 (cf. John 5:27), 27:42, John 1:49, and 19:21" (Intermediate NT Greek, p. 65)." - Intermediate NT Greek, p. 65Thus it seems fair to say, the NWT rendition of John 1:1c is grammatically legitmate since Colwells rule does not itself determine the predicate nominative is definite. This is rather like saying a Greek woman will wear a ring on her left hand if she is married and on her right hand if she is single. This may be true, but the rule doesn't say how we determine if the woman is Greek. CONCLUSION: While Professor Metzger was indeed a respected biblical scholar his opinion is not one universally agreed upon by everyone in the field. Numerous biblical scholars have chosen to translate John 1:1c in a similar way to the NWT, an evidently no grammatical rule has actually been disregarded in doing so.Further reading onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htmThe Abuse of "Colwells Rule" fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.fr/2012/04/abuse-of-colwells-rule-john-11c.htmlDoes "Colwell's Rule" shed light on how John1:1 should properly be translated? In cases parallel to John 1:1c Colwell's Rule is always incorrect. All proper examples show the predicate noun to be indefinite (with the indefinite article used in English translations). FURTHER READING onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htmexaminingthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.htmlRELATED POSTS What does Professor Metzer say as to the reasons for his conclusions?debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=822838#822838
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 5, 2018 6:56:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 27, 2019 5:03:20 GMT -5
Appearance In 2001, the retired medical artist Richard Neave led a team of Israeli and British forensic anthropologists and computer programmers in creating a new image of Jesus, based on an Israeli skull dating to the first century A.D., computer modeling and their knowledge of what Jewish people looked like at the time. Though no one claims it’s an exact reconstruction of what Jesus himself actually looked like, scholars consider this image—around five feet tall, with darker skin, dark eyes, and shorter, curlier hair—to be more accurate than many artistic depictions of the son of God. www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/ |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 27, 2019 5:18:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 2, 2019 12:29:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2019 2:11:53 GMT -5
|
|
