>On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:29:04 -0500 (EST) Edward Hobbs wrote:
>>As I hope is obvious, "official" interventions are few on this List.
>>The Chairman and Staff of B-Greek hope to see side-issues fade away, and
>>if they do not, gentle suggestions of the non-B-Greek character are
>>expected to bring them to an end.
That seemed pretty clear to me. As I read it, it said that we should stop
going down this dead end, and Edward identified this as an official
intervention. And I really think it IS a dead end. I have already apologized
to Carl and Edward for my part in continuing this controversy, and I would
also like to apologize to Paul and to the list.
>>I ask, therefore, that the thread be carried on ONLY off-list.
>>Jonathan has already suggested this; it is now official.
Only one person indicated interest in such an off-list discussion, and that
person is not one of the people who has posted publically. I can only
conclude that (1) real interest in the subject is minimal, and (2) those
debating the subject here aren't interested enough in the subject itself to
carry it on off-list, or at least not interested enough in what I would say
about it to warrant continuing in any form.
>Surely, if you are going to allow certain parties to bring up charges of
>textual contradiction, then you should also allow their opponents, in
>this regard, the opportunity to defend their position. You say with
>reference to 1 Jn 2:7-8, "the subject of what is logical and
>contradictory is not a problem of the Greek text."
Edward did not intervene until both sides had expressed their views quite a
few times, and he did not suggest that only one side should stop, he said
that we should all stop discussing this topic. I rather dislike the term
"opponents" as a description for other people expressing what they see in a
Bible passage, and after some of the meaningful email exchanges I've had
with you, I'm rather sad to see you apply it to me.
I think there is great virtue in limiting our discussion to the text and its
interpretation. We may not agree on certain hermeneutical principles,
theological axioms, etc., but we can all look at a text, interpret what it
says, and learn from what the others see in the text. And when there is
disagreement - well, if we agreed on everything, one of us would be
redundant. We don't have to be offended by the fact that there is
disagreement when we discuss something in a diverse group of people.
We have each expressed our views. Now we have an official request to stop.
Let's stop!
Jonathan
***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703 http://www.poet.com
***************************************************************************