Just as you always do, quote some unknown dood online to either try to support your own argument or try to refute someone else's argument.
You saying "Is not! Nuh Huh!" does not make it true.
Please explain to me what you think the difference is between "instead of" and "for?"
As I said in my previous post "Lord" in the vocative never takes the possessive pronoun!
Irrelevant I simply mistyped. I intended to say "Lord" in the vocative never takes the possessive pronoun.
there are no examples of kurie mou in the NT . That does not mean it is poor Greek Grammar.
Der Alter said:
According to ALL modern Greek scholars, e.g. Westscott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, and UBS, there are many errors in the TR. Thus the TR is irrelevant!
it's irrelevant whether the TR is correct or the WH is correct on rev. 4.11. either way it's no example of nominative for vocative.
Der Alter said:
The word or phrase "instead of" does NOT occur in the grammar you quoted! Your hammer/screwdriver analogy is irrelevant. If I use a screwdriver to drive a nail, I am using it in basically the same way I would use a hammer.
\Either way I smack the nail with the tool to make it go into the wood. In grammar using one case where another case would usually occur they are used the same way. The nominative case is used to address the object of the sentence.
Wrong, if you use a hammar FOR a screw driver, it means you tried to screw it in with a hammar, not whack it in, with a hammar. If you say you used a hammar instead of a screwdriver that would mean you whacked it in instead of screwing it in. you could say that you used a butter knife FOR a screwdriver. Or you could say you used a butter knife instead of a screwdriver. Because both a screwdriver and butterknife are capable of being used the same way. but you can't really say you used a hammer FOR a screwdriver tool, because a hammar is not capable of being used as a screwdriver. "instead of" and 'for' do not mean the same thing. they are not interchangeable.
just another of your made up grammar rules invented to prove Jesus is god, it just goes on and on making up more and more silly grammar rules to prove something that isn't in the bible.
Der Alter said:
See this post from earlier in this thread. Note how in classical Greek, before the NT was written, there was a rule of grammar which was known as "Nominative for the vocative." So the rule is NOT phony and/or made up!
Once again the unsupported opinion of someone who has no stated qualifications in Greek. It is NOT an exclamation! The speaker is addressing God directly and praising him
Darby translation has qualifications in Greek, I quoted the DArby Translation. . O lord is always an exclamation. .
Der Alter said:
Irrelevant! NOT an exclamation!
O lord is an exclamation. O is an exclamation. you've just made up another phoney grammar rule, O isn't an exclamation.
Der Alter said:
The TR is irrelevant since all modern Greek scholars recognize it has many errors.
Do you think that WH is always right and the TR is always wrong? No you don't because you go with the TR on 1 john 5.7 and not with WH.
Der Alter said:
As you have shown from your own post the "Nominative for Vocative" rule existed long before the NT was written or any NT scholar was born!
Gildersleeve is a christian greek scholar and classical greek scholar. so his views are tainted by christian greek scholars who made up the nominative for vocative Grammar rule. At first I did think I had found a secular souce saying nominative for vocative, I was honest enough to admit it, but further investigation revealed Gildersleeve is a christian greek scholar and a classical greek scholar..
read it from your favorite encylopedia.
Der Alter said:
NO, ZERO, NONE credible evidence to support any of your argument! While you were desperately trying to dig up something on Rev 4:11 you ignored the other five examples!
we are mles apart on rev. 4.11 it would be the same with all the other examples. Id say o lord is an exclamation always you'd say no it isn't. we are stuck in that rut. the use of the phoney nominative for vocative grammar rule has resulted in christian translators just picking and choosing at random how they will translate "ho kurios" sometimes they say oh ill make this one vocative and that one and exclamation and that one too ,and this one a vocative. Anther christian greek scholar has a totally different pick on the subject. as do they all. it's comic. they get to pick and choose how they want to translate a verse with yet another tool in addition to their made up grammar rule that they can translate prepositions anyway they want to.
Der Alter said:
You have shown nothing time after time! Your unsupported opinion is NOT evidence. Unfortunately although you, yourself, have posted irrefutable evidence you will acknowledge you are wrong!
nope have not. what we both have really shown is that a false doctrine, any false doctrine, such as Jesus is god, can only be defended with made up grammar rules. Any close examination of a false doctrine such as Jesus is God will reveal that it isn't true in scripture, hence the necessity of inventing phoney grammar rules to try and get scriptures to say what they do not say. Phoney grammar rules, such as sharps rule, colwells rule, and nominative for vocative, cause people like you to invent even more phoney grammar rules like your unbelievable ones such as verbs have no subjects in sentences, is is an action verb, and two new ones a voc. kurie doesn't take a possesive pronoun but a vocative Thee does and , and O Lord isn't an exclamation. And there are others you've invented that I don't recall off hand. You say you are a professor, you need to run these grammar rules you invented by your professor contemporaries and see the reaction you'll get. it won't be favorable. you need a reality check on your grammar rules they are below even elementry school level. even a 6th grader knows they are false.
Thee takes a possesive pronoun in Jesus address to god "My god (thee mou)" therefore there cannot be a grammar rule that says a voc. noun cannot take a possive pronoun. Jesus disproved that. You're always demanding credible sources, where's your source that says kurie cannot be modified with mou? Just some dood named Der Alter says it.
also the reason you don't find the aforementioned phoney grammar rules, and especially the ones you invented, is cause secular sources aren't trying to get sentences to say Jesus is God when they don't. That's the whole motivation behind these phoney rules and the only thing they are used for.
the reason that nominative for vocative grammar rule goes unchallanged in the christian world even by unitarians, is because all most every single christian believes in some shape form or fashion that Jesus is god, including most all unitarians. Hence there necessity in having the phoney grammar rule, nominative for vocative for without it there's no Jesus is god doctrine. I know you can't see how unitarians say Jesus is god. Typically unitarians say Jesus is not god but it's ok to call him god for blah blah blah reason. It's the same thing, their hedging their statement that Jesus is god is just a contradiction and therefore they are really saying Jesus is god, in a different way than most do. It's just like the king has no clothes on, everyone says he does so he does, well everyone doesn't. I don't and there are others who say the king has no clothes on. And I can see it cause I'm not blinded by false doctrine.
in Greek and so to get the O sound you would have to use the o sounding omega, not the o sounding omricon because that would make child masculine which it is not. Get it? the T-NSM is the o sound as is omega.
