Hippolytus and Noetus - Novatian - Greg Stafford on the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools

[Steven Avery]

Both the examples listed by you above are not regarded as true examples of Sharp's rule. Sharp erred by failing to account for the close apposition "Lord Jesus Christ" in those texts.

Hopefully, you realize that the complex rules of exceptions from Sharp and Winter did not exist when Glassius wrote. Thus he would have a much simpler use of the article and those two verses would have been included by him as Jesus is God verses, if he felt it was a Rule.

Btw, you are adding yet more baggage of exceptions. That is the nature of Sharp-Wallace-Winter. Tailor the exceptions to try to reach the desired results, whatever deity verse might be left standing.

Is "close apposition" a Wallace exception, or a brand new Winter exception?

 

[Brianrw]

Nothing was "misunderstood". You muddied the discussion by emphasizing a "quote", without saying who it was from, or what was the context, and it turned out to be a Latin word, not English, with a different context. You impugned your own credibility.

You accused me of inserting it, so clearly you misunderstood what I wrote. I clarified that I didn't and where it came from. Then after I clarified it you accused me of playing quote games. You can let this one go, it's not worth arguing over.

Is "close apposition" a Wallace exception, or a brand new Winter exception?

It's the general consensus.

Hopefully, you realize that the complex rules of exceptions from Sharp and Winter did not exist when Glassius wrote. Thus he would have a much simpler use of the article and those two verses would have been included by him as Jesus is God verses.

Do you view "epithet" in Glassius, which is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing," as being different from, "a personal description regarding dignity, office" (which are, in fact, examples of epithets)?

A rule states what falls under it. Those rules are pretty confined. The same exceptions apply under both rules, under both Sharp and Glassius:

1. Must be singular.
2. Must be personal.
3. Must be an epithet.

You've been providing examples that don't meet the criteria. It seems, at least to me, that you think any "the"-noun-"and"-noun construction that doesn't fit the rule proves an exception and therefore invalidates the rule itself. I'm trying to help you understand that's not the case.

The usage of the English article in the equivalent English construction has virtually the same limitations (e.g., "the forlorn administrator and over all nice guy Steven Avery"), and none of the many exceptions invalidate the rule. Some examples of exceptions to the English usage:

1. "The Father and Son." The Son is not an epithet of the Father.
2. "The first and second." Numbers are not personal.
3. "The rocks and trees." "Trees" and "Rocks" are plural and not personal.
4. "The buyers and sellers." While involving epithets, both are plural.
5. "The husband and wife." "Wife" is not an epithet of "Husband"
6. "The grass and sky." Both are singular, but not personal, and one is not an epithet of the other.

In every point here, the Greek and English follow the same idea. These exceptions do not make the equivalent English construction invalid.

While there may be hundreds of examples of exceptions, all of the fall under those same 3 simple rules.

So Glassius blundered on Jude 4. And gave an absurd claim.
And he errred badly on Ephesians 5:5, he should have simply read Calvin and accepted a pure and true exposition.

Is it safe for me to assume you've now given up Glassius?

I don't believe Calvin had the same depth of the knowledge of Greek, but he was no slouch either. I can look at what he wrote if you please care to send it.