>I argued that Wallace failed to mention John 14:9 in the NT, and
>passages like Genesis 31:38, 41 in the LXX, which from all references
>I've seen are indisputable uses of "eimi" as a historical present.
>I would think that a scholar like Wallace would know these passages
>far better than an amateur such as myself. But since Wallace's
>argument number (3) implies by omission that such passages do not
>exist, he is failing to present information that shows that his
>argument is incorrect. I argued that such an omission is deliberate
>and unscholarly.
Alan,
I think it is appropriate to point out omissions that you believe speak
against a scholar's point of view. I think it is inappropriate, at any
level of discourse, to accuse or even to intimate that someone has
deliberately omitted evidence because that evidence speaks against the
particular viewpoint he or she is trying to defend.
Jim Oxford
PhD candidate in religion
Baylor University