Coptic views dating

Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").

Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.

Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This is not to say that Be Duhn is to be dismissed lightly.

This verse starts with the phrase "Originally the Word was" (reflecting the wording of the 1950 Edition, later revised to the more familiar "In the beginning"). He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts.

This authority represents the best in modern scholarship, and if you wish to differ with it, you bear the burden of 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: h OS h A One should not rest theological conclusions on tersely written lexicon entries, especially when those terse comments are problematic. Doing so would not compromise any form of monotheism because it would be modalistic. tou/ qeou/ la,bwne;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. Again, as I explain above, describing Christ as God in the highest sense would not violate the Shema or the First Commandment UNLESS one understands this description to mean that he is a second, separate God. To run to Exodus 7:1 to explain John 1:1 is simply indefensible. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree.