# Exegetical 'rules' like Granville Sharp's



## polemic_turtle (Apr 25, 2007)

Hey, what is the basis of a rule like Sharp's? I'm fairly familiar with his rules and know how I want to use them( Mat 28:19, Joh 1:1 ), but I want to know why someone who doesn't want to be convinced should be compelled by such a rule as his. Is the rule based upon it possibly being true, since one can interpret consistently if one uses it or is it actually a product of the Greek mind? Please fill me in with whatever you can find.

I wonder if it could be illustrated like so:

_The colour of blue is well-liked. The color of blue is not well-liked._

I can interpret this without a contradiction if I understand the words "colour" and "color" to denote a different set of cultural standards( British & American ), rather than simply different ways to spell the same word. That would be consistent, but should anyone therefore feel compelled to accept my "rule" just because it can work without contradiction? Isn't my rule merely an observant speculation? Or can it be said that the author of the sentence above thought he was making that distinction when he wrote it? Thank you.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Apr 25, 2007)

http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/41/41-4/41-4-pp591-613-JETS.pdf

Start on p. 15. Not sure if it exactly helps, but it could guide you in the right direction.


----------

