Wormwood said:Well, nodhead keeps trying to plow his heifer, but it is of no use. I dont play da foo. When I discuss Colwell's Rule and claim it to be "irrefutable" and your response is essentially that such a statement is an attempt to "refute" Wallace, it sure seems like you are claiming Wallace does not believe Colwell's Rule to be irrefutable (that's just my intuition on how language works, ya see). Now a person doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to connect those dots.
Anywho, you just keep on a-rollin' with your Greek rules called "nothead's intuitive rules." Im looking forward to your Greek textbook that expounds on the profundity of these concepts. Until then, I'll just go with the PhD's and language experts who have no access to your secret intuition that flies in the face of everything written in the Greek textbooks we have today.
Again, way to piggy-back off of Wallace in order to take him way out of his context and use his concept to teach something completely opposite of he actually means. As my quote from him above shows, he clearly sees John 1:1 as a description of Christ's divinity.
Find where I said Wallace is ant-trin or JisG and I will stand down. As it is you owe me an apology for saying my posts lie.
Repeteze for Worm 3x: Wallace says your COLWELL RULE does not apply to Jn 1:1c. No more no less. And I did not lie. LIAR is the most often used FLAME in the annals of theological debate. A childish ad hom. Nevertheless telling as to your character, sir.