Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

  1. Default support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

    SEE CARM POSTS

    support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

    Confessions of a member of the church of England occasioned by a laborious examination of the work of William Jones: "The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity" (1830)
    John Shaw
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ubFNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA84

    "Now it will be found, upon a careful examination of the three chapters I have mentioned, that in every instance where the masculine article and pronoun are used, the Paraclete is either the expressed or obviously implied antecedent."
    The whole section is a good read.

  2. Default

    Naselli and Gons
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery;[url
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?235581-The-Double-Standards-and-Self-Contradictions-of-Dr-Wallace&p=7038461&viewfull=1#post7038461]You[/url] may be able to claim NETBible inconsistency by Daniel Wallace.

    Beyond that, look up Naselli and Gons (2011). They confirm the Wallace position that many interpreters, and some grammarians, have made a false argument claiming personality on various verses by a supposed constructio ad sensum. They add a ton of helpful historical material.

    And and you can try the good old "..." and (misrepresentation) attempts there, although it might be a tad difficult.

    Steven Avery

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •