DOn't hide your failures behind mud slinging and name dropping. You'll note that I quoted Daniel Wallace, author of the well acclaimed advanced Greek Grammar.
But even more than name dropping, you completely tucked your tail in regard to the Greek Grammatical arguments I presented. What's the matter with an honest analysis of the text? Can't you do independent analysis?
Go back and open your (I assume you have some) scholarly textbooks. Let's see what they can say about my specific pointed arguments because you just went into a tucked tail flight. If you can't say something scholarly, then don't pretend to be a scholar and hide behind someone else's acclaim.
I gave three pointed arguments.
You failed to answer any of the three.
Dr. O
Does your total dishonesty get any more clear? I showed that your other verses have nothing to do with it, and I showed that most other scholars disagreed, and then I showed that your own scholar doesn't interpret John 1:1 the way you do, you have done nothing to disprove what I said, and then you resort to personal type comments. Had you a shred of credibility, you would be able to actually defeat the rebuttals, but it appears you're content to just go "Nuh uh" and leave it at that. I would demand a refund at whatever institution you went to, what was it, "Bob's school of Theology"? Did you not even see how I said that Wallace is technically right in one sense (though not necessarily right)? Do you not even understand that Wallace does not support what you're saying? He only says that its POSSIBLE to read it that way.
As for "tucked my tail", WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What did I tuck my tail on? What of your arguments did I not address and counter? Are you this desparate? Apparently. So please, prove that you're not totally lying by presenting these "three arguments" that you think I've failed to discuss. In fact, I asked you to present evidence of this use of the Aorist tense or at least a scholarly link that backs your case, and you
REFUSED EACH TIME. You simply cited Romans 8 without providing any specific verses. I asked you to show other examples in the text, along with a link. You refused. What you've made quite clear is that "independent analysis" = making up what you say as you go. Apparently you interpret "Challening claims" to "Tucking tail".
You have three pointed arguments? Total BS. Any "arguments" you've presented have been refuted or challenged, and you have REFUSED TO DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE each time. I demonstrated that the other verses you used do not necessarily convey what you want. You just can't admit that there are other opinions which go against yours. And those other opinions are the grand majority of Trinitarian scholars. The idea of an "honest analysis" isn't exactly "honest" in your case.
As for "independent analysis", you may not understand how this works because I don't think your University taught you this concept, but when you make bold assertions, you MAY want to have SCHOLARS WHO BACK YOUR CASE. As it stands, it's a matter of your scholar versus my scholar. Your "independent analysis", as others can see, also includes a completely fallacious interpretation of Colwell's rule that somehow involves the use of "And" (It doesn't.). Your idea of "independent analysis" = "Say whatever I want regardless if others agree". Are you saying that we are not supposed to present links to back our claim? Or is that just your excuse to get out of the fact that the Grand majority of Trinitarian scholars disagree with your case?
Now if you want to talk about "Name dropping", that's called "Backing up your claim with scholarly authority". I don't see what "failure" I presented. The grand majority of Trinitarian scholars disagrees with you, and your response is to write them all off and dismiss them, and then you use one quote by Wallace which doesn't necessarily prove conclusive to either direction.
So let me tell you something that Bob's School of Theology may not have taught you: If you're going to make an argument about the grammar of a single verse, you may want OTHER VERSES THAT USE THE SAME GRAMMAR to back your case.
Otherwise, your case about the Aorist, along with your other "points" are proven to be nothing more than your own hogwash.
