If that is what you are trying to prove then quote what Wallace said, in context, which you did NOT do, as I pointed out!
"Deliberate misrepresentation of the source! Your quote from GGBB, by Wallace refers to the Nominative of exclamation (corrected) and you omitted the first, the key sentence in the meaning, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence." And it lists three examples Rom 7:24, 11:33, and Mark 3:34. Wallace also says that, "The Nominative of exclamation (corrected) is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for vocative!"
John 20:28, is Thomas replying directly to a request from Jesus so it very definitely is connected to the rest of the sentence. That automatically excludes it from the category of Nominative of address.
Also Wallace, and Robertson whom he quotes, lists John 20:28 as Nominative for Vocative, pg. 58. Wallace lists nineteen examples of Nominative for Vocative, beside John 20:28, John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Gal 3:1, Matt 17;17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, 24:25, Act 13:10, 18:14, 27:21, Rom 11:33, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Eph 5:22, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:8."
Thomas didn't say "and Thomas answered him". Thomas only said "O my Lord and O my god". There is no verb in what Thomas said, what thomas said is an emotional outburst, and it does require an a exclamation point. Rules of grammar are for what people say, and what Thomas said fits. for what Thomas said to be considered a nominative of address and not a nominative of exclamation Thomas would have to have said more, like' My Lord and my god you have risen from the dead.
This argument is totally irrelevant. It does not address my reply! You tried to quote bits and pieces of Wallace as support for your argument but ignored everything he said which proves your argument for the rubbish it is. Which I quoted and which you have ignored!
John 20.28 is quoting something Thomas said And what Thomas said was not a complete sentence, it was an emotional outburst. Your way if anyone quotes someone uttering an emtional outburst, well then it ceases to be an emotional outburst cause you quoted him.
Thomas exclamed the emotional topic "O my Lord and O my god" without any verb stated.
* * * Irrelevant English examples omitted! * * *
John 20.28 is not an exclamation only what Thomas said is an exclamation.
In light of the several scholars I have quoted, your opinion means absolutely nothing!
they are all exclamations, take john 17.25 for example.
(NKJV) John 17:25 "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.
Every supposed examples these scholars list are all in fact really just exclamations.
Your opinion is irrelevant! Even if true, so what? According to Robertson and Wallace Nominative of Exclamation is a subcategory of Nominative for Vocative.
that's just your opinion. No one says whether omicron was used or not used as the exclamatory sound O. All we have to go on on that issue is that ο θεος is translated as O God in several places in the NT. And that the sound of omicron and omega are very similar or exactly the same. and that omega was definitely used as the exclamatory O sound.
Try paying attention! The sound of Greek letters is irrelevant! Greek scholars don't translate based on the sound but how the letter is written. There is no way any Greek scholar could mistake the letter, omicron, ο for the letter, omega, ω. Nor would any Greek scholar mistake the letter, omicron´, ό, for omicron ̂ , ô.
No scholar comments one way or the other. my opinon is just as good as your's or anyones. In your opinion it is irrelevant, in my opinion it is relevant. My opinion is that it is highly likely that omicron was used to mean the exclamatory O sound based on the above 3 mentioned facts. It is only your opinon that he above 3 mentioned facts are irrelevant. Scholars offer no opinon or facts either way.
I cannot prove a negative but read any grammar and see if there is one, anywhere, which mentions translating based on the sound of the letters omicron or omega?
anyone can recognize the difference between an omicron an an omega. what would be relevant would be can anyone recognize the difference between the sound of an omicron and an omega to any significant degree? the answer is NO.
Irrelevant scholars today and ancient scholars did not write based on the sound of letters!
Yea and you could say something similar about Ehrman, but Ehrman's theology is garbage cause he is an athiest. Scholars theolgoy isn't gauranteed cause they are scholars. [ . . . ]
Ehrman would only be relevant if he wrote anything on the topic of Nominative for Vocative!
all Greek scholars agree that what Thomas said could be an exclamation. They dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclmation based on their theology and their OPINION that O my god is taking the name of the lord in vain.. They do not dismiss what Thomas said as being an exclamation based on Greek grammar.
Where does any of the Greek scholars cited in this thread agree that John 20:28 could be an exclamation?
Based solely on Greek grammar, what Thomas said can be nothing other than an exclamation because if fulfills all 3 requirements that identify something as an exclmatation. I'm just applying their grammar rules , and they are applying thier theology..
Wallace, whose rule you misquoted, says of the Nominative of exclamation, in the very first sentence of the definition, "The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence!" WWBB, Wallace, pg. 59. The words of Thomas in John 20:28 are a direct reply to Jesus' command to Thomas, therefore it is excluded by the very first requirement of the rule<period> end of story!
In the realm of theology accuracy isn't dependant upon how intelligent or knowledgeable you are it's dependant upon how willing you are to be led by the holy spirit into all truth. On that theology level, I am their equal. It is their OPINON, not grammar, that Thomas would have been uttering god's name in vain.
Thus saith every false religion follower out there, e.g. JW, LDS, UU, OP, WWCG, non-trin MJ, kristadeklfian, Jim Jones, Davide Koresh, etc.
John 20:28 according to the early church.
The Treatises Of Cyprian Book II [A.D. 170-236]
Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth. Also in the eighty-first Psalm: They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness. Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name. Also in the Gospel according to John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. Also in the same: The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.
Also Paul to the Romans: I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore. Also in the Apocalypse: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Also in the eighty-first Psalm: God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst. And again in the same place: I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men. But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!
A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [a.d. 210-280.]
Repeating this same thing, He says: "Father, glorify me with that glory wherewith I was with Thee before the world was."90 And if this Word came down from heaven as a bridegroom to the flesh, that by the assumption of flesh He might ascend thither as the Son of man, whence the Son of God had descended as the Word, reasonably, while by the mutual connection both flesh wears the Word of God, and the Son of God assumes the frailty of the flesh; when the flesh being espoused ascending thither, whence without the flesh it had descended, it at length receives that glory which in being shown to have had before the foundation of the world, it is most manifestly proved. to be God. And, nevertheless, while the world itself is said to have been founded after Him, it is found to have been created by Him; by that very divinity in Him whereby, the world was made, both His glory and His authority are proved. Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him. But we cannot say that nothing was made by Him, when we observe it written that all things were made by Him. He is not therefore subsequent to all things; that is, He is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since God is prior to all things. For He is before all things, because all things are by Him, while if He were only man, nothing would be by Him; or if all things were by Him, He would not be man only, because if He were only man, all things would not be by Him; nay, nothing would be by Him. What, then, do they reply? That nothing is by Him, so that He is man only? How then are all things by Him? Therefore He is not man only, but God also, since all things are by Him; so that we reasonably ought to understand that Christ is not man only, who is subsequent to all things, but God also, since by Him all things were made. For how can you say that He is man only, when you see Him also in the flesh, unless because when both aspects are considered, both truths are rightly believed?