>Osoclasi,
>
>Your amen bit is nothing to me, so I didn't bother replying.
> I could show you a number of places where people share
>titles in the Bible..

Response: Of course it means nothing to you, because context means nothing to you. (shrug) It was used in order to set up the context of the passage.

Secondly, I thought you were suppose to be moving on, you notice that in the last three or four post, you have not posted a single arguement, you just keep saying that you have nothing to respond and that you are moving on, but you seem to be moving pretty slowly. :) Actually you seem to be just bickering. Maybe you are procrastinating so that you can research something. Hmmmm.

Thirdly, why are you trying to say that I lost because of an example,when I asked you for anyone agreeing with you about the inceptive of John 1, and you admitted to not have a single source. That was also one of your funnier moments.


>Otherwise, you've completely FAILED. I asked for an example
>of ARCH as used at Rev 3:14 to support your position and you
>could not provide it. You lose, gave over. Your position
>has no foundation.

Response: Oh you put *failed* in all caps, that must be serious. Anyway, we both know that genitives don't change the meaning of words. There are plenty of places (examples) where arche means governmental ruler such as Titus 3:1; Eph 3:10; Gen 1:16, Exod 6:25 etc, feel free to look any of them up. There are plenty more where that came from. As a matter of fact, they make the second most occurances of arche in both the LXX and NT. So to say I have no evidence is pretty silly.

All of your examples (so called partitive) were not personal, so therefore, your examples are not what is being represented in Rev 3:14. Nor were they titles, within a double genititive.

The only one that was personal( that I remember) was the one about Reuben, Gen 49:3, but when we look at the verse, we see, that there is no article, in Rev 3, there is an article. And when we compare it to every other letter in Revelation we see that in the beginnning of each letters Christ gives himself a title, that ho arche is a title, ho amen, (the amen), ho martus ho pistos (the faithful witness) he apche ( the ruler) these are titles, it is not the same as apche techon which lacks the article and is followed by a plural noun. In Gen, it is simply prosequential, meaning that Reuben is the first in a series of items or children. It is not being used as a title, like Rev.

Thirdly for some weird reason you think that the most important thing is finding a similiar genitive, and that is only about 2% of the equation, context comes into play, usage of the word comes into play, not only in the LXX but also the NT, church Fathers, and classical literature, context of the entire book comes into play. And as I said, your examples were not what was being represented in Rev 3, you just assumed they were, without closely looking at it.

>
>You did not overcome the GRAMMATICAL parallel between Heb
>2:8 and John 1:3,

Response: There was no grammatical parallel there at all, they have different subjects, objects, and most importantly different context, the only thing similar is the phrase *all things*, which was not even an arguement in my mind, I actually thought that it was quite funny, that you even went that route.

NOR the contextual issue with John 1:4.

Response: Sure, I did, it makes no sense. Even your translation made no sense. But again, I am not trying to convince you any longer, you seem to be pretty set in your ways, so trust me if you want to stay the way you are, there is no sweat off my back.


>You did not overcome John 1:10 as inceptive. You just said
>something along the lines of, "I don't see any reason not to
>use a normal imperfect." That isn't even remotely an answer
>to the material I put forth.

Response: Sure I did, I qouted you Wallace, example of what an inceptive was, there was no change in direction nor context, nor topic. And the only answer you asked was *show me where that is mandatory* which technically you could ask that to just about every rule in existance. So that is no rebuttal.
>
>Claim victory all you want,

Response: Sure I win.

but as Cave Dweller even noted
>(as a third part, who has admitted a Trinitarian slant), you
>did not prove your position at all, and you are dilusional
>if you think you did.

Response: Sure I have, that is why you have not provided a single arguement in the last three post, only "I am leaving now" and "no need to respond" or "your delusional" etc.

I mean that does not bother me. So I suppose your going to reply back saying how delusional I am again, and saying that your going to leave etc. Or find me an example of something. So go right ahead.