tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post6198280065074150223..comments2023-07-23T09:12:13.303-07:00Comments on Examining the Trinity: HARNER's 'Qualitative' JBL Article AnsweredElijah Danielshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13053062645377291813noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post-12842728253042913442015-01-08T11:15:42.579-08:002015-01-08T11:15:42.579-08:00Especially in the case of John 8:48, what would be...Especially in the case of John 8:48, what would be the base of an argument that someone could qualitatively be "a samaratin"? What does Harner say in defence of that verse?<br /><br />Thanks for your hard workAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post-998322598390556732013-01-21T16:32:01.977-08:002013-01-21T16:32:01.977-08:00Anonymous,
You wrote:
“if it functions as a non c...Anonymous,<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“if it functions as a non count noun it would then function more as qualitative or abstract” <br /><br />I’m afraid you have misapplied the information found in the above study. The point is that Harner, like a number of Trinitarian scholars is incorrect in his insistence that an anarthrous noun is often merely a quality. There is little reason to insist on such a thing as I attempted to show by analyzing every one of his examples.<br /><br />An anarthrous count noun is an indefinite noun: ‘a man,’ ‘a goat,’ ‘a prophet,’ ‘a god,’ etc. Even anarthrous non-count nouns are not ‘qualitative’: “flesh,” “soup,” “spirit” (as a ‘substance’), “gold,” etc. when considered as being something which is found in a mass is still an indefinite noun - not a quality.<br /><br />If one wants a quality in Greek, he need only use an adjective: “divine,” “human,” “canine,” etc. When we use a concrete noun, it is either definite or indefinite.<br /><br />Some concrete nouns may be used as EITHER count nouns OR non-count nouns. So it is with “spirit.” We may use it as a non-count noun: “His body was composed of spirit.” This is how some translators use “spirit at John 4:24, for example: “God is spirit” (NASB) - meaning His substance is spirit just as a man‘s substance is flesh. And some consider it as a count noun: “God is a spirit” (KJV) - meaning He is a spirit person.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"the word was God (Qualitative)then the word became flesh, flesh is being used in a qualitative manner, so john is saying Jesus took on humanity. john differiantes from what the word was to what the word became its very poetic in the prologue. so this is also another reason why i believe theos in john 1:1c is focusing more on nature and as such I wouldn’t take theos as a concrete noun in john 1:1c.”<br /><br />“Flesh” is a concrete noun. It is a substance one can see, touch, etc. It is not a noun being used in a QUALITATIVE manner any more than any other similar noun. It is simply a non-count indefinite noun and as such does not take the indefinite article. <br /><br />If John had intended to make John 1:1c say that the Word was a quality, he would have used the adjective ‘theios’ (not ‘theos’) which would have then meant “The Word is DIVINE.”Elijah Danielshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13053062645377291813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post-74403893119836006862010-12-26T21:44:00.597-08:002010-12-26T21:44:00.597-08:00i see what your saying, for example flesh is somet...i see what your saying, for example flesh is something they call non-count nouns because it cant be flesh's and theos is a count noun because it can be pluralized "gods", if it functions as a non count noun it would then function more as qualitative or abstract which I see it as such in john 1:1c also due to the fact that i believe it would be reasonable to see that john wanted us to see john 1:1 c in the light of john 1:14 or vice versa "the word was God (Qualitative)then the word became flesh, flesh is being used in a qualitative manner, so john is saying Jesus took on humanity. john differiantes from what the word was to what the word became its very poetic in the prologue. so this is also another reason why i believe theos in john 1:1c is focusing more on nature and as such I wouldn’t take theos as a concrete noun in john 1:1c.Now grammatically it may be possible but I think we need to also look at context too.<br /><br />cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post-18518079857819831582010-12-26T13:06:38.941-08:002010-12-26T13:06:38.941-08:00Here is how this study defined “abstract #”: “Abst...Here is how this study defined “abstract #”: “Abstract #”: the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (see “John 1:14” above). <br /><br />An ‘indeterminate amount’ applies to nouns which are not described with an indefinite article because although they may be indefinite, they are things that are measured out rather than a known number. (Since this study was done many years ago the term for these nouns is “non-count nouns.”) For example, “Mammals are flesh.” “Flesh” is not described as one flesh, two fleshes, etc. Nor do we say “It is a flesh.” It is a ‘non-count’ noun, and, as such, is not a proper example for any rule in which anarthrous nouns are an important part.Elijah Danielshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13053062645377291813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653325549409648983.post-70979461229163358632010-12-25T23:08:15.637-08:002010-12-25T23:08:15.637-08:00hmm well john 4:24 and John 3:6 are a couple examp...hmm well john 4:24 and John 3:6 are a couple examples of purely Qulatative. but one lacks a verb, in this article their seen as absract because their refering to spirit , but essentialy when you do a word study on the word spirit you will see that they are applied also to personal beings. So what iam saying is that it is possible that in john 1:1c Theos is functioning in like manner as apirit is in john 3:6 and john 4:24. You would mabey call that abstract others mabey Qualatative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com