Ain't no mountain high enough

Antonio has responded to the criticism of the third-party witness I had review his "lexical study", and while it would be entertaining to go through it line by line, let's just hit the high notes:

[1] Antonio makes it clear that he think BAGD makes the point that "psuche" can mean "temporal life". You know: nobody has said otherwise. The question is if it can mean "temporal life" in James 1:21, and BAGD and BDAG both make it clear what the answer to that question is. Saying so doesn't elevate one's view of BAGD or BDAG to that of "inspiration" as Antonio has intimated: it means that those of us who haven't spent our entire professional lives studying Greek ought to rely on reference material to help us become even marginally competant in dealing with that language.

[2] Antonio has overlooked the full force of the argument provided by the anonymous professor of Greek regarding his lexical study -- which is that Antonio's "study" has overlooked that the use of "psuche" and "sozo" subsequent to the writing of James tends toward the eternal perspective rather than the temporal. It's a point I made passively in my first response to Antonio's work: lexical range occurs in a historical context. One occurance happens in a continuum of usage. In that, even if (big "if") the use of "psuch" and "sozo" together in every case in LXX means "to save one's earthly life", that doesn't represent all of the uses of these words together, and it doesn't deal with the contextual issues of James 1:21.

[3] It's interesting that Antonio wants to use Poythress' work in the controversy over gender-inclusive language to advance the idea that BDAG is an unreliable source. See: if the argument he makes in this case is valid, he has a far bigger problem -- it can be turned against his own use of BDAG/BAGD to cast doubt on whether or not "psuche" means "temporal life". There is no relationship between the complaint Poythress makes and the argument that Antonio is making -- or rather, if there is, it is such a gigantic complaint that BDAG has to be abandoned as a lexical source as it is completely useless. If antonio is right, it's completely mired in personal preferences rather than in actual, academically-useful principles and conclusions.

In Antonio's argument, I am wrong, Bauer and Danker are wrong, the author of a widely-used textbook on koine Greek is wrong, and of course 95% of all readers of this passage are wrong. We cannot even call someone who agrees with us an "expert" without that statement gaining cynical admonition. Again, the reader of this exchange should think about what is more likely, and whether there are any subjects in which Antonio can admit he is wrong.