Titus 2:11-14 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Line 13. Anyone want to explain this away?
Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Moderator: Moderators
-
Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9199
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #1Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #51[Replying to post 49 by tigger2]
I think Athanasius was wrong, and if he were here I would challenge him to cite any Scripture which indicates one must believe God is a Trinity in order to be saved.
And if my position needs any clarification, I believe that Father YHVH alone is God.
I think Athanasius was wrong, and if he were here I would challenge him to cite any Scripture which indicates one must believe God is a Trinity in order to be saved.
And if my position needs any clarification, I believe that Father YHVH alone is God.
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #52[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
Thank you for pointing out the need to discuss Sharp's rule, JehovahsWitness. It's key to this topic. Granville Sharp formulated the principle in the late 18th century. It reads as follows:
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article �, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . .
In simple terms, the rule is:
When you have two nouns in Greek that describe a person and those two nouns are connected by the word “and� and the article “the� precedes the first word and not the second, both nouns refer to the same person.
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 give us just that: Two nouns (God and Saviour) describing a person connected by the word “and� with the article “the� preceding the first word, but not the second. Therefore, the nouns refer to the same person – that person being Jesus Christ.
There are four requirements for the rule:
1. The noun must refer to a person, not a thing.
2. The noun cannot be a proper or personal name.
3. The nouns must be in the same case.
4. The nouns must be singular in number.
The verses from Titus and 1 Peter meet these requirements.
JW wrote:
Secondly, the example of “king and country� is inadequate and meaningless. You must produce examples in the Greek language, not in English, because we’re talking about rules of Greek grammar, not rules of English grammar.
I read the article at Explaining the Trinity for which you provided a link re: Sharp’s Rule. I noticed some significant mistakes in it. For one thing, the writer refers to one of the greatest critics of the Rule, G. B. Winer, as a Trinitarian. He wasn’t. He was anti-Trinitarian and, while he was a renowned grammarian in the Greek language, his argument against Sharp’s Rule wasn’t grammatical, but theological because he couldn’t argue against it from a grammatical perspective – and admitted it! Therefore, to misrepresent him as the author of that article at Explaining the Trinity has done is a serious error -- and totally misleading.
Here’s the thing: Sharp found his rule applied to eight christologically significant texts as well as to 25 non-christological texts in the New Testament. Additionally, you will find the same construction in the works of Plutarch, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus and Aristophanes as well as in non-literary papyrus – some 41 constructions fit the requirements for Sharp’s Rule in the latter. This is noteworthy because it means that Sharp’s Rule is not merely an a posteriori description of New Testament usage. It existed in the Greek language in general.
Also of note is the appearance of the principle in patristic literature which again indicates that it isn’t something Sharp dreamed up to fit his Trinitarian viewpoint. He didn't force it on these New Testament passages. He merely observed it in his studies.
There are actually five “Sharp� constructions in 1 Peter. In addition to 2 Peter 1:1, we find 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18. And yet, nobody seems to disagree with his rule regarding them. Even non-Trinitarians accept them. This suggests it is their desire to remove the reference to Christ as God that makes them deny the application of the rule in 2 Peter 1:1.
And we see in the book of Titus that the phrases “God our Saviour� and “Jesus our Saviour� are used interchangeably. Yet the Old Testament (indeed all of Jewish literature) says only God is our Saviour (Is. 43:11) who takes away our sins. Since John the Baptist declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away our sins (John 1:29), what does that say about Christ? As Murray Harris put it, ὀ Θεὀς και σωτη� (God and Saviour) denoted one deity, not two, in the first century. Paul, a good Jew, would certainly understand the importance of monotheism -- and what he was saying about the deity of Jesus Christ.
Also note that the word “appearing� is always used of Jesus, not of God the Father, meaning that, when Paul speaks of "the appearing of the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ� in Titus 2:13, he is talking about Jesus and calling him God. See 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:9; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1,8.
You can find all of the information above as well as much more at these sites:
https://bible.org/article/sharp-rediviv ... sharp-rule
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1991/01/01 ... arps-rule/
Thank you for pointing out the need to discuss Sharp's rule, JehovahsWitness. It's key to this topic. Granville Sharp formulated the principle in the late 18th century. It reads as follows:
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article �, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . .
In simple terms, the rule is:
When you have two nouns in Greek that describe a person and those two nouns are connected by the word “and� and the article “the� precedes the first word and not the second, both nouns refer to the same person.
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 give us just that: Two nouns (God and Saviour) describing a person connected by the word “and� with the article “the� preceding the first word, but not the second. Therefore, the nouns refer to the same person – that person being Jesus Christ.
There are four requirements for the rule:
1. The noun must refer to a person, not a thing.
2. The noun cannot be a proper or personal name.
3. The nouns must be in the same case.
4. The nouns must be singular in number.
The verses from Titus and 1 Peter meet these requirements.
JW wrote:
First of all, we’re not talking about several nouns connected by “kai�. That involves enumeration which is something entirely different. So the Moulton quotation is immaterial.Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek explains that where there are several nouns connected by "kai" (and) "The art[icle] may be carried over from the first noun to the other(s)" - p. 181, Vol. 3, 1963. Indeed this is the case in many similar constructions. We do a similar thing in English when we refer to "King and country"; it is understood, even without saying King and the country that the country is not the king.
Secondly, the example of “king and country� is inadequate and meaningless. You must produce examples in the Greek language, not in English, because we’re talking about rules of Greek grammar, not rules of English grammar.
I read the article at Explaining the Trinity for which you provided a link re: Sharp’s Rule. I noticed some significant mistakes in it. For one thing, the writer refers to one of the greatest critics of the Rule, G. B. Winer, as a Trinitarian. He wasn’t. He was anti-Trinitarian and, while he was a renowned grammarian in the Greek language, his argument against Sharp’s Rule wasn’t grammatical, but theological because he couldn’t argue against it from a grammatical perspective – and admitted it! Therefore, to misrepresent him as the author of that article at Explaining the Trinity has done is a serious error -- and totally misleading.
Here’s the thing: Sharp found his rule applied to eight christologically significant texts as well as to 25 non-christological texts in the New Testament. Additionally, you will find the same construction in the works of Plutarch, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus and Aristophanes as well as in non-literary papyrus – some 41 constructions fit the requirements for Sharp’s Rule in the latter. This is noteworthy because it means that Sharp’s Rule is not merely an a posteriori description of New Testament usage. It existed in the Greek language in general.
Also of note is the appearance of the principle in patristic literature which again indicates that it isn’t something Sharp dreamed up to fit his Trinitarian viewpoint. He didn't force it on these New Testament passages. He merely observed it in his studies.
There are actually five “Sharp� constructions in 1 Peter. In addition to 2 Peter 1:1, we find 1:11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18. And yet, nobody seems to disagree with his rule regarding them. Even non-Trinitarians accept them. This suggests it is their desire to remove the reference to Christ as God that makes them deny the application of the rule in 2 Peter 1:1.
And we see in the book of Titus that the phrases “God our Saviour� and “Jesus our Saviour� are used interchangeably. Yet the Old Testament (indeed all of Jewish literature) says only God is our Saviour (Is. 43:11) who takes away our sins. Since John the Baptist declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away our sins (John 1:29), what does that say about Christ? As Murray Harris put it, ὀ Θεὀς και σωτη� (God and Saviour) denoted one deity, not two, in the first century. Paul, a good Jew, would certainly understand the importance of monotheism -- and what he was saying about the deity of Jesus Christ.
Also note that the word “appearing� is always used of Jesus, not of God the Father, meaning that, when Paul speaks of "the appearing of the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ� in Titus 2:13, he is talking about Jesus and calling him God. See 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:9; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1,8.
You can find all of the information above as well as much more at these sites:
https://bible.org/article/sharp-rediviv ... sharp-rule
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1991/01/01 ... arps-rule/
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #53
Seems like God is coming back with fire and His sword regardless of the belief or not in the trinity.
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/66-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/66-16.htm
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #54[Replying to post 51 by Overcomer]
Sharp’s Rule: Primer
In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called “Sharp’s Rule� by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word “and,� they all refer to the same person if the word “the� (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).
For example, if we saw “the king and _master of the slave� in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both “king� and “master.� (“King� and “master� are joined by “and� - - only “king� has the article.)
Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction�) was used with “God� and “Christ� in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his “rule� was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity� tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study) that God and Jesus are the same “person�!
The 5 “proofs� of Jesus’ Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the NT Greek manuscripts):
(a) Titus 2:13: “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus�
-----------------τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆ�ος ἡμῶν Χ�ιστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: “righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ�
-------------------δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ
(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ�
τὴν χά�ιν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυ�ίου Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ
(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: “in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels�
----------------- �νώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χ�ιστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν �κλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων
(e) Eph. 5:5: “...in the kingdom of the Christ and God�
ï€ -----------------á¼�ν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ ΧÏ�ιστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ
Since the first noun (“God� in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the�) with it and the following noun (“savior� in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the�), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!
There are a number of reasons why Sharp’s Rule, as applied to these 5 “proofs,� is invalid (See the SHARP study). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. Henry Alford; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).
In vol. 5, p. 257, the respected (and trinitarian) The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov ['lord']) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."
For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible’s renderings of these “Sharp’s Constructions�:
2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.
Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (‘70,‘91).
2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.
1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.
These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp’s “Rule� at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!
Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of a Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God� - KJV; KJ21; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.�) Instead it clearly shows two persons! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp’s Rule is a valid absolute rule!
Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp’s Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.
(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;� “in the Lord;� “God of...;� etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the�) and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, “The God of me� (with article) and “_God of me� (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article (“the�) is ambiguous in such cases.
Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.
But if you examine the 5 trinitarian “proofs� above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: “of us� in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a “prepositional� genitive, and even “savior� itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means “of savior;� “Lord� in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means “of Lord� (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay’s Daily Study Bible); “Christ� in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means “of Christ� (as in the Good News Bible [& TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and “God� in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means “of God� (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).
Therefore all 5 Sharp’s “proofs� are invalid on the basis of 'prepositional' constructions alone!
(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names (“John,� “Moses,� “Jesus,� etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)
So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. “the James� and “James�), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - A.T. Robertson, Grammar, pp. 760, 791.
For example, when “Jesus� and “Christ� are in apposition to each other (“Jesus Christ� or “Christ Jesus�), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of “Sharp’s Rule� or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!
If we examine the first 4 of the 5 “proofs� above, we see that the proper name “Jesus� is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, “Christ Jesus� is the appositive for “savior� in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes “savior� will have “the� with it in such a situation and sometimes it won’t (with no change in meaning). “Jesus Christ� is the appositive for “savior� in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with “savior� in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. “Jesus Christ� is in apposition to (an appositive for) “Lord� in 2 Thess. 1:12. And “Jesus� is in apposition (at least) to “Christ� in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp’s “Rule� with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even extreme trinitarian A. T. Robertson has to admit that the “evidence� of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 4, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus’ Godhood!
Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:
“The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob� - Luke 20:37.
“The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob� - Matt. 22:32.
“James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ� - James 1:1
“By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus� - 1 Tim. 1:1.
“I am the root and the offspring of David� - Rev. 22:16.
Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:
“having seen _Peter and _John� (no articles) - Acts 3:3.
“holding fast ... the Peter and the John� (both articles) - Acts 3:11.
“beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John� (Sharp’s) - Acts 4:13.
“But the Peter and _John� (Sharp’s construction) - Acts 4:19.
So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names (and their appositives) as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or, more properly, that he was completely unaware of Sharp’s Rule (or any first century equivalent)!
* * * * *
Although we can find such constructions as “the king and master of the slave� where the first noun (with the definite article, ‘the’) is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as “the boy and girl� and “the President and Vice President� (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.
My full study of Sharp's: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rule.html
Sharp’s Rule: Primer
In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called “Sharp’s Rule� by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word “and,� they all refer to the same person if the word “the� (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).
For example, if we saw “the king and _master of the slave� in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both “king� and “master.� (“King� and “master� are joined by “and� - - only “king� has the article.)
Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction�) was used with “God� and “Christ� in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his “rule� was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity� tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study) that God and Jesus are the same “person�!
The 5 “proofs� of Jesus’ Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the NT Greek manuscripts):
(a) Titus 2:13: “of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus�
-----------------τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆ�ος ἡμῶν Χ�ιστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: “righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ�
-------------------δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ
(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:“the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ�
τὴν χά�ιν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυ�ίου Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ
(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: “in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels�
----------------- �νώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χ�ιστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν �κλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων
(e) Eph. 5:5: “...in the kingdom of the Christ and God�
ï€ -----------------á¼�ν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ ΧÏ�ιστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ
Since the first noun (“God� in the first four scriptures) has the article (“the�) with it and the following noun (“savior� in the first two scriptures) does not have the article (“the�), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!
There are a number of reasons why Sharp’s Rule, as applied to these 5 “proofs,� is invalid (See the SHARP study). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. Henry Alford; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).
In vol. 5, p. 257, the respected (and trinitarian) The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov ['lord']) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."
For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible’s renderings of these “Sharp’s Constructions�:
2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.
Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (‘70,‘91).
2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.
1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.
These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp’s “Rule� at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!
Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of a Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God� - KJV; KJ21; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.�) Instead it clearly shows two persons! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp’s Rule is a valid absolute rule!
Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp’s Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.
(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;� “in the Lord;� “God of...;� etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the�) and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, “The God of me� (with article) and “_God of me� (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article (“the�) is ambiguous in such cases.
Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.
But if you examine the 5 trinitarian “proofs� above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: “of us� in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a “prepositional� genitive, and even “savior� itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means “of savior;� “Lord� in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means “of Lord� (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay’s Daily Study Bible); “Christ� in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means “of Christ� (as in the Good News Bible [& TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and “God� in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means “of God� (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).
Therefore all 5 Sharp’s “proofs� are invalid on the basis of 'prepositional' constructions alone!
(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names (“John,� “Moses,� “Jesus,� etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)
So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. “the James� and “James�), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - A.T. Robertson, Grammar, pp. 760, 791.
For example, when “Jesus� and “Christ� are in apposition to each other (“Jesus Christ� or “Christ Jesus�), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of “Sharp’s Rule� or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!
If we examine the first 4 of the 5 “proofs� above, we see that the proper name “Jesus� is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, “Christ Jesus� is the appositive for “savior� in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes “savior� will have “the� with it in such a situation and sometimes it won’t (with no change in meaning). “Jesus Christ� is the appositive for “savior� in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with “savior� in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. “Jesus Christ� is in apposition to (an appositive for) “Lord� in 2 Thess. 1:12. And “Jesus� is in apposition (at least) to “Christ� in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp’s “Rule� with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even extreme trinitarian A. T. Robertson has to admit that the “evidence� of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 4, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus’ Godhood!
Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:
“The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob� - Luke 20:37.
“The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob� - Matt. 22:32.
“James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ� - James 1:1
“By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus� - 1 Tim. 1:1.
“I am the root and the offspring of David� - Rev. 22:16.
Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:
“having seen _Peter and _John� (no articles) - Acts 3:3.
“holding fast ... the Peter and the John� (both articles) - Acts 3:11.
“beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John� (Sharp’s) - Acts 4:13.
“But the Peter and _John� (Sharp’s construction) - Acts 4:19.
So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names (and their appositives) as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or, more properly, that he was completely unaware of Sharp’s Rule (or any first century equivalent)!
* * * * *
Although we can find such constructions as “the king and master of the slave� where the first noun (with the definite article, ‘the’) is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as “the boy and girl� and “the President and Vice President� (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.
My full study of Sharp's: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rule.html
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1237 times
- Been thanked: 314 times
Post #55
Bible scholar Dr. Jason BeDuhn wrote the following about "Sharp's Rule":
"'Sharp's Rule' does not survive close scrutiny. He claimed that the rule did not apply to personal names, only to personal titles. That is why it is cited in connection with Titus 2:13 and not Titus 1:4, with 2 Peter 1:1 and not 1:2. Daniel Wallace has demonstrated that even that claim is too broad, since he found that 'Sharp's Rule' doesn't work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, Wallace finds that a phrase that follows the form article-noun-'and'-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which one is a subset of the other, or two identical groups (Wallace, page 72-78). In other words, there is no evidence that anything significant for the meaning of the words happens merely by being joined by 'and' and dropping the second article.
"The problem is not with Sharp's honesty or his diligence, but with the premises by which he did his work. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. The authors of the books of the New Testament did not have their own form of Greek with its own rules. Rather, they were working within a much larger Greek linguistic and literary environment. To be sure that you have identified a 'rule' of Greek, you need to look beyond the confines of the New Testament, because within the New Testament a pattern of use may be only a coincidence within the small sample of Greek grammar and syntax found there.
"If we turn to the standard work of Greek grammar, that of Smyth, we find no 'Sharp's Rule.' But we do find several 'rules' that may explain the pattern Sharp thought he was seeing in the new Testament. Smyth, section 1143, says: 'A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and produces the effect of a single notion.' That sounds an awful lot like 'Sharp's Rule,' doesn't it? But what exactly is meant by 'a single notion'?
"Smyth gives two examples: 'the general and captains (the commanding officers)'; 'the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet).' You can see from these examples that the two nouns combined by 'and' are not identical; the individual words do not represent the same thing."
Truth in Translation, BeDuhn, 2003, pp. 92,93.
Grace Theological Journal, Daniel B. Wallace, 1983, pp.59-84.
Greek Grammar, Herbert Weir Smyth, 1920
"'Sharp's Rule' does not survive close scrutiny. He claimed that the rule did not apply to personal names, only to personal titles. That is why it is cited in connection with Titus 2:13 and not Titus 1:4, with 2 Peter 1:1 and not 1:2. Daniel Wallace has demonstrated that even that claim is too broad, since he found that 'Sharp's Rule' doesn't work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, Wallace finds that a phrase that follows the form article-noun-'and'-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which one is a subset of the other, or two identical groups (Wallace, page 72-78). In other words, there is no evidence that anything significant for the meaning of the words happens merely by being joined by 'and' and dropping the second article.
"The problem is not with Sharp's honesty or his diligence, but with the premises by which he did his work. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. The authors of the books of the New Testament did not have their own form of Greek with its own rules. Rather, they were working within a much larger Greek linguistic and literary environment. To be sure that you have identified a 'rule' of Greek, you need to look beyond the confines of the New Testament, because within the New Testament a pattern of use may be only a coincidence within the small sample of Greek grammar and syntax found there.
"If we turn to the standard work of Greek grammar, that of Smyth, we find no 'Sharp's Rule.' But we do find several 'rules' that may explain the pattern Sharp thought he was seeing in the new Testament. Smyth, section 1143, says: 'A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and produces the effect of a single notion.' That sounds an awful lot like 'Sharp's Rule,' doesn't it? But what exactly is meant by 'a single notion'?
"Smyth gives two examples: 'the general and captains (the commanding officers)'; 'the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet).' You can see from these examples that the two nouns combined by 'and' are not identical; the individual words do not represent the same thing."
Truth in Translation, BeDuhn, 2003, pp. 92,93.
Grace Theological Journal, Daniel B. Wallace, 1983, pp.59-84.
Greek Grammar, Herbert Weir Smyth, 1920
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21144
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 795 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
- Contact:
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #56[Replying to post 51 by Overcomer]
Tigger (and onewithim) have thoroughly responded the points you raised, I look forward to reading your detailed reply.
As for my links to my brother Foster, even though he is a published author and a Greek scholar he is very active on his blog and I'm sure will respond if you ask him about what you perceive as errors in his work. Again I look forward to reading the exchange.
If I have anything to add I will do so after reading your what you post in response to the above individuals.
JW
Tigger (and onewithim) have thoroughly responded the points you raised, I look forward to reading your detailed reply.
As for my links to my brother Foster, even though he is a published author and a Greek scholar he is very active on his blog and I'm sure will respond if you ask him about what you perceive as errors in his work. Again I look forward to reading the exchange.
If I have anything to add I will do so after reading your what you post in response to the above individuals.
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #57[Replying to post 53 by tigger2]
It looks to me, tigger2, that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. As usual, all you have done is cut and paste an article from a web site. Here's why I say that:
You wrote:
Acts 20:28; Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 4
I will not list all 25 of the others, only these few to prove the point:
2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 6:21; Phil. 4:20; Heb. 3:1; James 3:9; 2 Peter 2:20; Rev. 16:15
tigger2 wrote:
tigger2 wrote:
tigger2 wrote:
"One of the ironies in the history of biblical studies, which early on found massive and well-documented support among classical scholars and patristic scholars, was almost felled by one unsubstantiated footnote by G. B. Winer."
He then quotes the footnote and adds,
"Although he advances no real grammatical arguments, because he was a highly-regarded grammarian Winer was able to cancel out, by the intimidation of his own opinion, the use of Sharp's Rule in passages such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1."
See here for the full passage:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XlqoTV ... gy&f=false
Wallace makes it clear that Christian scholars and theologians did indeed accept Sharp's Rule as valid when it came out and now when people are not unduly influenced or awed by Winer.
tigger2 wrote:
https://biblehub.com/titus/2-13.htm
tigger2 wrote:
Again, I don't think you even read my post as you didn't address anything I said in it. You have only copied and pasted information from another site. That's your prerogative. But it doesn't refute anything I have said.
It looks to me, tigger2, that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. As usual, all you have done is cut and paste an article from a web site. Here's why I say that:
You wrote:
If you had read my post, you would know that I said there were eight verses of christological significance and 25 non-christological passages that conform to the rule. These are the eight:Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction�) was used with “God� and “Christ� in 5 places in the NT.
Acts 20:28; Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 4
I will not list all 25 of the others, only these few to prove the point:
2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 6:21; Phil. 4:20; Heb. 3:1; James 3:9; 2 Peter 2:20; Rev. 16:15
tigger2 wrote:
Once again, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that Sharp only gave his name to a rule that was in effect in non-Biblical classical Greek, non-literary papyri and that was recognized by the early church fathers.If he could convince others that his “rule� was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity� tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study) that God and Jesus are the same “person�!
tigger2 wrote:
Again, if you had read what I had written, you would know that Winer was NOT a Trinitarian, that he objected to the Trinitarian understanding of the verses in Titus 2:3 and 2 Peter 1:1 on theological grounds, NOT grammatical ones -- which he admitted to. He actually agreed with Sharp's Rule from a grammatical perspective. He just didn't want it applied to verses that spoke to Christ's deity.One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer;
tigger2 wrote:
That simply isn't true. If you would take the time to read the Wallace article for which I provided a link, you would see that modern scholars/theologians accept and respect it. In fact, even when it came out, there wasn't a tremendous amount of resistance to it. Here's what Wallace had to say about Winer in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp’s Rule is a valid absolute rule!
"One of the ironies in the history of biblical studies, which early on found massive and well-documented support among classical scholars and patristic scholars, was almost felled by one unsubstantiated footnote by G. B. Winer."
He then quotes the footnote and adds,
"Although he advances no real grammatical arguments, because he was a highly-regarded grammarian Winer was able to cancel out, by the intimidation of his own opinion, the use of Sharp's Rule in passages such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1."
See here for the full passage:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XlqoTV ... gy&f=false
Wallace makes it clear that Christian scholars and theologians did indeed accept Sharp's Rule as valid when it came out and now when people are not unduly influenced or awed by Winer.
tigger2 wrote:
I'm trying to understand why you think that applies. I can't see that it does because there IS an article (τοῦ) in the original Greek in Titus 2:13. And the word "ἡμῶν" is placed after the substantive simply because that's where they generally are (with some exceptions) in the Greek language. It is translated "our" in English as in these 29 translations, both old and new:Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;� “in the Lord;� “God of...;� etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the�) and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
https://biblehub.com/titus/2-13.htm
tigger2 wrote:
Sharp's Rule doesn't apply to proper names. So all of the above is immaterial since there are no proper names in the verses from Titus and 2 Peter. Once again, I refer you to my original post wherein I outlined the four requirements for a passage re: Sharp's Rule.New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names (“John,� “Moses,� “Jesus,� etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)
Again, I don't think you even read my post as you didn't address anything I said in it. You have only copied and pasted information from another site. That's your prerogative. But it doesn't refute anything I have said.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #58[Replying to post 55 by JehovahsWitness]
JW wrote:
JW wrote:
I think that, like tigger2, you didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said there were mistakes in the article from ExplainingtheTrinity and I cited one. I have cited more in my response to tigger2 as he merely cut and pasted information from an article at that site.As for my links to my brother Foster, even though he is a published author and a Greek scholar he is very active on his blog and I'm sure will respond if you ask him about what you perceive as errors in his work
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #59
[Replying to post 54 by onewithhim]
Again, all I see is something copied and pasted. You didn't address any of the issues that I raised about Sharp's Rule. You didn't comment on how Jesus is called Saviour just as God is. You didn't comment on the fact that Paul only uses the word "appearing" when he speaks of Jesus.
Jason BeDuhn is not a Greek scholar. He's a man who has criticized the translation process without being an expert in Biblical languages or translation.
I have quoted Dan Wallace because he IS a language scholar, one of the translators of the NET Bible and the author of textbooks used to teach Greek in seminaries across North America. I myself used his text in my Advanced Greek class. In fact, he's one of the leading textual critics in the world, highly-respected by his peers. BeDuhn is not.
And, as with tigger2, I wonder if you even read what I wrote because you cite this from Smyth:
Again, all I see is something copied and pasted. You didn't address any of the issues that I raised about Sharp's Rule. You didn't comment on how Jesus is called Saviour just as God is. You didn't comment on the fact that Paul only uses the word "appearing" when he speaks of Jesus.
Jason BeDuhn is not a Greek scholar. He's a man who has criticized the translation process without being an expert in Biblical languages or translation.
I have quoted Dan Wallace because he IS a language scholar, one of the translators of the NET Bible and the author of textbooks used to teach Greek in seminaries across North America. I myself used his text in my Advanced Greek class. In fact, he's one of the leading textual critics in the world, highly-respected by his peers. BeDuhn is not.
And, as with tigger2, I wonder if you even read what I wrote because you cite this from Smyth:
As I explained in my first post, you have to provide an example from the Greek language, not from English because the languages are different and their rules of grammar are different. Therefore, the above is immaterial."Smyth gives two examples: 'the general and captains (the commanding officers)'; 'the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet).' You can see from these examples that the two nouns combined by 'and' are not identical; the individual words do not represent the same thing."
Re: Clear declaration of Jesus as God
Post #60[Replying to post 56 by Overcomer]
Overcomer and Sharp's Rule - post 56 -
It looks to me, tigger2, that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. As usual, all you have done is cut and paste an article from a web site. Here's why I say that:
You wrote:
If you had read my post, you would know that I said there were eight verses of christological significance and 25 non-christological passages that conform to the rule. ....
If you had read my post (or my personal study found in the link I gave), you would know that Sharp himself chose those 5 scriptures as his 'proof.' You would also find a number of Bible translations of those 5 by trinitarians which don't accept 'Sharp's Rule.'
....
tigger2 wrote:
Once again, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that Sharp only gave his name to a rule that was in effect in non-Biblical classical Greek, non-literary papyri and that was recognized by the early church fathers.
I don't find that even Wallace claims Sharp was not the originator of this idea. Give your sources, please. Otherwise it is meaningless.
tigger2 wrote:
Again, if you had read what I had written, you would know that Winer was NOT a Trinitarian, that he objected to the Trinitarian understanding of the verses in Titus 2:3 and 2 Peter 1:1 on theological grounds, NOT grammatical ones -- which he admitted to. He actually agreed with Sharp's Rule from a grammatical perspective. He just didn't want it applied to verses that spoke to Christ's deity.
Again, give your sources. As far as I can tell Winer was a trinitarian. I have found no information otherwise.
....
tigger2 wrote:
I'm trying to understand why you think that applies. I can't see that it does because there IS an article (τοῦ) in the original Greek in Titus 2:13. And the word "ἡμῶν" is placed after the substantive simply because that's where they generally are (with some exceptions) in the Greek language. It is translated "our" in English. ....
So you are ignoring the most important point (along with the effect of appositives) in the refutation of this manufactured 'Rule.' It seems as though you really don't understand literal NT Greek at all. If I'm wrong, you really should read my post and linked information much more carefully.
....
Again, I don't think you even read my post as you didn't address anything I said in it. You have only copied and pasted information from another site. That's your prerogative. But it doesn't refute anything I have said.
As you have been informed in the past, studies on my blog are my personal studies done over many years. The text and the references were written by me. And a careful reading clearly refutes your 'evidence' to the contrary.
From post #58 by overcomer:
Again, all I see is something copied and pasted. You didn't address any of the issues that I raised about Sharp's Rule. You didn't comment on how Jesus is called Saviour just as God is. You didn't comment on the fact that Paul only uses the word "appearing" when he speaks of Jesus.
Jason BeDuhn is not a Greek scholar. He's a man who has criticized the translation process without being an expert in Biblical languages or translation.
Others are called 'savior' and saviors in Scripture; look it up!
Jason BeDuhn is much more of scholar of Biblical languages than Sharp was when he produced his 'Rule.'
Overcomer and Sharp's Rule - post 56 -
It looks to me, tigger2, that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. As usual, all you have done is cut and paste an article from a web site. Here's why I say that:
You wrote:
Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a “Sharp’s construction�) was used with “God� and “Christ� in 5 places in the NT.
If you had read my post, you would know that I said there were eight verses of christological significance and 25 non-christological passages that conform to the rule. ....
If you had read my post (or my personal study found in the link I gave), you would know that Sharp himself chose those 5 scriptures as his 'proof.' You would also find a number of Bible translations of those 5 by trinitarians which don't accept 'Sharp's Rule.'
....
tigger2 wrote:
If he could convince others that his “rule� was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a “trinity� tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study) that God and Jesus are the same “person�!
"In conclusion, it might be said that knowing this rule can be a tremendous source of encouragement in that we have absolute grammatical certainty that the rule applies to at least four passages in the New Testament which teach that our Lord Jesus is God." - “Greek Grammar & Syntax�
(203) pp. 92-111 of Selected Notes on the Syntax of New Testament Greek, by Daniel B. Wallace, 3rd ed., 1981.
Once again, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that Sharp only gave his name to a rule that was in effect in non-Biblical classical Greek, non-literary papyri and that was recognized by the early church fathers.
I don't find that even Wallace claims Sharp was not the originator of this idea. Give your sources, please. Otherwise it is meaningless.
tigger2 wrote:
One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer;
Again, if you had read what I had written, you would know that Winer was NOT a Trinitarian, that he objected to the Trinitarian understanding of the verses in Titus 2:3 and 2 Peter 1:1 on theological grounds, NOT grammatical ones -- which he admitted to. He actually agreed with Sharp's Rule from a grammatical perspective. He just didn't want it applied to verses that spoke to Christ's deity.
Again, give your sources. As far as I can tell Winer was a trinitarian. I have found no information otherwise.
....
tigger2 wrote:
Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: “of God;� “in the Lord;� “God of...;� etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article (“the�) and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
I'm trying to understand why you think that applies. I can't see that it does because there IS an article (τοῦ) in the original Greek in Titus 2:13. And the word "ἡμῶν" is placed after the substantive simply because that's where they generally are (with some exceptions) in the Greek language. It is translated "our" in English. ....
So you are ignoring the most important point (along with the effect of appositives) in the refutation of this manufactured 'Rule.' It seems as though you really don't understand literal NT Greek at all. If I'm wrong, you really should read my post and linked information much more carefully.
....
Again, I don't think you even read my post as you didn't address anything I said in it. You have only copied and pasted information from another site. That's your prerogative. But it doesn't refute anything I have said.
As you have been informed in the past, studies on my blog are my personal studies done over many years. The text and the references were written by me. And a careful reading clearly refutes your 'evidence' to the contrary.
From post #58 by overcomer:
Again, all I see is something copied and pasted. You didn't address any of the issues that I raised about Sharp's Rule. You didn't comment on how Jesus is called Saviour just as God is. You didn't comment on the fact that Paul only uses the word "appearing" when he speaks of Jesus.
Jason BeDuhn is not a Greek scholar. He's a man who has criticized the translation process without being an expert in Biblical languages or translation.
Others are called 'savior' and saviors in Scripture; look it up!
Jason BeDuhn is much more of scholar of Biblical languages than Sharp was when he produced his 'Rule.'
