>
>(Tony-Reply6) It would have to be purely qualitative for an
>indefinite rendering to not be perfectly acceptable. These
>are not my rules, this is just basic grammar.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well tony if a count nouns can be used in a qualitative sense without distorting or valilating any rules then it is perfectly acceptable for a qualitative rendering. Unless you can prove that there is grammaticle difficulties with such a rendering and prove that it is not possible for Greek to do this, then my view is fine. And indefinite rendering is ok, however it is not in line with the context of the passage itself.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>When you get stuck, what else is there to do but to change
>your position? I see no reason for not taking it as
>inceptive, because he was in the world from the point in
>which he entered the world.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well that is not what John is saying or trying to illustrate here. In verse 9 he is the one coming into the world, the erkomenon. That is the point where he entered, in verse 10 John is simply sureveing Christ while he was on earth, simply saying that he was here. If we take an inceptive interpretation it would read "and he began in the earth" he began what?

An inceptive is illustrating someone beginnig to do action, the action of coming into the world is already done, and verse 10 just points out what Christ did, he was in the earth. Wallace notes on page 544...

The ingressive imperfect is especially used in narrative literature when a CHANGE in activity is noted... but the context in each instance indicates a topic shift or new direction for the action.

An example would be Matt 3:5 "then Jerusalem *began* going out to him. Now tone does this look like JOhn 1:1?

By definition, the imperfect is often used to stress the beginning of an action. In verse 10 what did Christ begin?
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>Well the verb is an eimi-verb and thus, it is the action of
>being. He was being in the ARCH, and he began being such.
>So again, no reason not to take it inceptively.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: That makes no sense, so you are saying that Christ began being? I think that is the wildest statment that you have said yet?

In the beginning the word began being and the word was with God...

that is nonsense. You are totally reading your theology into this text.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>hO GEGONEN goes with verse 4 ala the ANF and the NJB and
>others. It says live CAME TO BE in the Son. Who knew the
>punctuation better, you or the early church writers who grew
>up around the language?

Response: It appears to me that ho gegonen is a relative clause as opposed to a nominative article, well at least that the way it is accented in my GNT. Don't know bout the others. So it should be translated as "that which came into being..." it would fit better with the previous clause then.
>(Tony-Reply6)
>And your basis for this conclusion is what?

Response:Because as I have pointed out, everything that is created JOhn juses egeneto in the verse. Notice verse 6

egeneto anthropos. There was a man... John applies egeneto to John because he is created. In verse 10 ho kosmos di autou egeneto. The world through him became...

everything that was created John uses egeneto, for Jesus he uses en. i.e. vv 1:1, 1:2; 1:4; 1:10 etc.

If HN is
>inceptive, and I've provided good reason for it to be such,
>and John wanted place emphasis on his being in the state
>instead of entering the state, Hn would be perfect.

Response: IN the beginning teh word entered a state of being? Sound good to you?

Either
>way, you've yet to counter my point when I highlighted if
>the ARCH was 20 billion years ago and Jesus was created 25
>billion years ago, HN would be used still. You assume a
>priori that hO LOGOS is eternal.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Well that is not what JOhn was saying at all, sorry.
>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>EXACTLY. What did John want to stress? Did he want to
>stress entering the state or being in the state? If we
>wanted to stress entering it, he would use GINOMAI, if he
>wanted to stress being in it, he would use HN. That does
>not rule out HN being inceptive.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: He wanted to stress that the world became at a specific point that is why egeneto is used. Again for it to be inceptive it would have to show that the creation began doing some sort of action.

>(Tony-Reply6)
>If he was ruler, it would be ARCWN ala Rev. 1:5.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: That is nonsense one is just feminine and the other masculine that is not a good arguement.
>
>>>(Tony-Reply6)
>Exactly. However, the emphesis here is on him being in the
>state of eimi-ing, not entering it.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: here is another example of an inceptive Toney I think you are confused.

Mark 9:20 He fell on the ground and began rolling about, foaming at the mouth.

Notice a change he began to do something, now does this look like John 1:1?
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>I disagree, because Christ HN EN TON KOSMON once he entered
>into the world. From that point on, he was in it. So it is
>definitely inceptive. You might want to ask your professor
>why it is not inceptive instead of just taking his word for
>it, because I have yet to find a reasonable answer for why
>we shouldn't.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: John is not discussign when the logos entered in the world he is just surveying his minstry, he was here, that's all.
>
>>(Tony-Reply6)
>Wrong. The MSS have zero punctuation and no word breaks.
>The early church writers, who wrote, spoke and lived the
>language knew where hO GEGONEN went, and they all placed it
>with verse 4. They knew the language better than even the
>best scholars today.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: again I see it as a relative clause, not the nominative article.
>(Tony-Reply6)
>I have multiple times now, you just keep ignoring it. HN
>stresses entering the state, GINOMAI stresses entering the
>state. If HN is inceptive, it still stress being in the
>state, but only being in the state once it is entered.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: ginomai has nothing to do with egeneto verses en, John compares the two all through the first 18 verses. You must not know what I am saying.
>
>(Tony-Reply6)
>Already addressed. Life Came to BE in Him.
>(/Tony-Reply6)

Response: Uh it is more than that. He only uses en for the logos in the entire 18 verses then egeneto for everything else.
>