« Main Search

Greg Stafford: 5/26/99: Hartley's theory, regardless of what he tells you, is hopelessly without substantiation, as I will explain shortly.

Posted by Greg Stafford ( on May 26, 1999 at 11:06:25:

Greg Stafford:
I find it rather interesting that Hartley should come back so quickly on my partial reply and accuse ME of being hasty and uncritical in my response!

But this is the same Hartley who makes an issue out of alleged ad hominems on my part, when every single post he has sent about me has been filled with unprofessional expressions.

I am about 65% complete with a thorough rejoinder to Hartley's post. Regarding Hartley's last reply, he said:

The comments to Stafford's book are answered in full in the response to which he refers. The reference to "semantic signaling" is only the latest attempt of Stafford to get out of the semantic nuance of Q-d. Apparently Stafford hasn't carefully read my responses when he first attempts to cloud what I have said then presumes to assume for others that I have not clearly answered him. As any one who reads my responses can tell, my original assertion was based on his book and his subsequent reference to "semantic signaling" is a confirmation of his antagonism towards acquiescing to the semantic category of Q-d (Q).

What Hartley does not understand, apparently, is that I have no objection to a Q nuance for SARX in John 1:14. But Hartley's view is purposefully narrowed so that he does not look beyond the grammar of the text, to what it stand for! Again, we are dealing with a mass noun, and he attempts to transfer the Q nuance from a mass noun, to a count noun, with no concrete examples. I will explain this again, shortly.

But, does Hartley deny the SARX is a semantic signal for "a human being"? If not, then why is it that even if we where to parallel THEOS (1:1) with SARX (1:14) in their semantic tagging that we should not similarly see in THEOS a semantic signal for "a god"? Of course, Hartley's theory, regardless of what he tells you, is hopelessly without substantiation, as I will explain shortly.

He does not understand my objection to and use of Harner, and this leads him into error, and error that he apparently has difficulty understanding or admitting, for obvious reasons. He is reading his theology into the text and is attempting to create a semantic category (actually, he thinks "God" is a category, too!) that will get Trinitarians out of the many problems associated with John 1:1. But, as I will explain shortly, their attempt has no legs to stand on.



1.  "Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns" by Donald E. Hartley Th.M, Ph.D (student), Dallas Theological Seminary.
2.  Don Hartley's Misunderstanding of My View of Qualitative Nouns and P. B. Harners JBL Article By Greg Stafford
3.  Hartley responds with "Hartley's Second Response To Stafford" on May 25, 1999.
4.  Partial Response to Hartley, By Stafford: 5/25/99
5.  Another Response to Stafford - 5/25/99 (third)
6.  Greg Stafford on 5/26/99 says: "Hartley's theory, regardless of what he tells you, is hopelessly without substantiation, as I will explain shortly."
7.  Greg Stafford to Hartley on 5/26/99: "Please cite an example of a singular count noun in the precopulative position, that CANNOT be indefinitized." in Clarity, Please...
8.  Specifically...I would like Hartley to list the 19 Q-class nouns to which he refers on page 65 of his thesis (par. 2, line 5), for our consideration.
9.  Greg Stafford on 6/3/99: Surrejoinder to Don Hartley: Q-Class Count Nouns , John 1:1c, and Other Related Matters

    Previous Top
1999 - 2007 Jehovah's Witnesses United. All rights reserved. Terms of Service
home-icon.gif (1K) Home:
General News
Human Rights
Study Tools
Site Search
Web Search
genexe-icon.gif (1K) EXEGESIS:
Study Links
genexe-icon.gif (1K) GENERAL:
resources-icon.gif (1K) Resources: