Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Many, many thanks Unbound68!
You’re the only one claiming the nonsensical straw man term “invisible allegory,” and it’s a big part of why nobody scholarly takes your objections seriously.
Comedically? Sure. I mean, we laugh at the straw men that make Ray Bolger seem far more human than his "Oz" character was.
But one who desires to be taken seriously shouldn't be reduced to this level of straw man engagement.
It's simply an admission that the opponent neither has a serious argument nor should be taken seriously.
Uh yeah, like the layperson in the pew who didn't have a bible was going to check this out.
And again - just because he had it in his text doesn't mean John wrote it originally.
Cyprian glossed numerous passages.
That's what people did back then.
I documented all of this.
You denying that reality doesn't alter that reality.
Well, except he wasn't.
If he was, he wouldn't have glossed passages.
He also wouldn't have interpreted passages preposterously, which I showed to be true as well.
And please don’t quote old works that got stuff wrong. It’s nothing more than stubborn refusal to admit error on your part.
I'm still trying to figure out why AFTER reading my thesis that DOCUMENTS all this stuff, you keep coming back with the already refuted arguments.
The only people I've ever known to do this were cult members who had been drilled in repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Such might be fitting as you are a member of the Oneness cult - by your own admission.
But you really need to come up with something better than "Nuh-UH!!!"
We have no reason to assume Cyprian ONLY had one Bible.....so your starting point is demonstrably false.
What's funny is that you yourself want to make that same argument when you keep claiming - without a shred of evidence - that Cyprian knew Greek.
In other words, you're JUST FINE with Cyprian having more than one Bible when it suits your purposes but now you want to limit him to one.
The reality is that most of those guys in the early days had more than one Bible - just like English-speaking people do today.
Logical fallacy: non sequitur.
One should figure that if you had actual evidence of this it would not be invisible evidence.
One is inclined to say, "Every single commentator" in this amusing attempt to limit counter-evidence.
Continues arguing in circles after corrected......
You mean 20 full verse references in LATIN would somehow destroy his argument that this is a LATIN corruption?????
I'm trying to follow you here because you're not being clear.
The early existence of the Comma Johanneum IN LATIN is admitted by all - if by early you mean "late fourth century, perhaps a tad earlier."
But this proves nothing for your claim that John wrote it.
John didn't write his epistles in Latin, he wrote them in Greek.
There's not a grammar vindication - on multiple levels - and you know this fact.
I'm not sure why you can't just admit, "Okay, I'm wrong on this issue, and I've been wrong for over 20 years."
It would be the first step to your enlightenment of truth.
So I have the pdf copy of the book The Witness of God is Greater (which technically isnt even written by Avery, since another man is listed as the author) as it appears at Avery's forum.
It appears that he went and found some authors more in line with his position to provide the Potamius excerpts (beginning at pg 75) with verse 7 as the reference instead of verse 8, which was provided by Conti. Conti's work on Potamius has been completely wiped from Avery and company's book!
It appears that he went and found some authors more in line with his position to provide the Potamius excerpts (beginning at pg 75) with verse 7 as the reference instead of verse 8, which was provided by Conti. Conti's work on Potamius has been completely wiped from Avery and company's book!
664 pages of that nonsense?
Ok I can think of one way I’d read it. If Avery Spencer can arrange for the complete destruction of everything on earth except for me and this 664-page nonsense….eventually I’d probably get bored and take a look at it.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
That's because I discovered the CONTEXT of chapters 1 and 2 of "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (which I suspected all along anyway) gave the absolute opposite sense to what Avery Inc., claimed.
Avery NOW knows, that Potamius comes the closest to his Strawman invention "invisible allegory" when he (Potamius) says he was giving the "hidden figurative meanings that lye underneath" the meaning of the literal text in the sentence before the first quotation and his eisegetical explanation of 1 John 5:8(Clause-D) (just one sentence away, at the start of paragraph/section 3).
NOTE: My clause division, for analytical purposes and more precise referencing of the individual clauses in 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8 will now be a four part (A to D) rather than a three part (A to C) division.
Stephanus/Received Text (1550)
1 John 5:7
[Part-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Part-C] ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Part-D]
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
1 John 5:8
[Part-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Part-C] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Part-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I agree.
I suspect there is doubled (possibly tripled) up references. The Latin psuedographic Athanasius "De Trinitate" for example, attributed to multiple authors, may be doubled up etc.
It's messy, inaccurate, and poorly written.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You are behind.
As I corrected this back two weeks ago.
Then we have the question of 1 John 5:8
The reference you give on p. 20 is:
Christian Remembrancer
John Oxlee
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA138
This is as close as he gets, but it is way off-base because afaik Nolan does not claim that the spirit, water and blood are personified. If he does, I would like to see it, and I would chalk it up to error.
However, we can allow it as the one known early example of a "solecism anyway" argument.
And I do not see anything that matches your claim of a "preposterous notion" that relates directly to the grammatical argument. We can go into the Eusebius issues separately, the back and forth with Thomas Falconer (1772-1839).
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is fallaciously circular, as I pointed out in a post earlier on another thread:
The post above.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You want to avoid the basic issue of the 16 blunder verses, so you repeat this again and again.
However, trying to use 1 John 5:8 as a diversion from your obvious 16-verse blunder is simply a worthless circular argument.
Good try, though.
=============================
Ok, working on catching up.
For about a week I had very limited posting, and was emphasizing especially the fascinating Granville Sharp studies.
Time to soon take a walk on the Hudson River bridge, Poughkeepsie to Highland, and the Mayfest.
Grace and peace to readers in Jesus name.
Maybe I will run through a bit more first
.=============================
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Actually I have answered that numerous times.
Here is one.
Matthaei also reported a scholium that tries to explain the masculine grammar as a reference to the Trinity.
Plus most scribes are simply copyists.
It is not their job to correct the text, or write various notes.
=====================
As to your other attempts, the six other points, surely we could discuss every one of them.
My pleasure.
However, first you should explain why you show sixteen clearly irrelevant verses, with masculine and feminine substantives. You clearly were under a delusion that any grammatical discord, of any nature, refutes the grammatical gender argument as given by Eugenius and Nolan.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I've never had an interest in a debate with a potty-mouth person. (Easy to document on BVDB.)
You once apologized for all that raunchy stuff, on BVDB when I was not there, but then you retracted the apology.
Plus you never really spelled out the exact topic, the venue or anything, you just wanted this nonsense type of talking point.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
First we take the Blunder 16, and we add the circular earthly witnesses.
When that is complete, we look at other verses and arguments.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
No surprise there, since you cannot give an honest answer as to why you have the blunder of the 16 verses in both the thesis and the original CARM post. I expect you to skedaddle.
Guy who can't get the English grammar correct above thinks he knows Greek grammar when he doesn't speak or read Greek.
Because you make that claim does not prove it to be true. Your own opinions are often fallaciously circular.
While each statement in your allegations and claims in several of your posts have been examined, countered, or answered, you try to dodge, avoid, and dismiss those responses. You also improperly attack the honesty of other posters.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You don't understand Eugenius' argument.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Meaning you don't comprehend his argument or it's logical implications. You don't get it, you're twisting it, you're misrepresenting it, and have attempted to represent it as your own (when he goes against your very own tenets), all of which will be borne out in its own good time. But be assured, you are VERY much mistaken.
Last edited:
You are the one behind on facing the truth. You still cling to incorrect, erroneous KJV-only claims and reasoning.