Your continued attempts to question and attack the integrity and honesty of other posters are not convincing evidence for your non-scholarly opinions.However, you should have the integrity to also deal with the 16 blunder verses.
Your continued attempts to question and attack the integrity and honesty of other posters are not convincing evidence for your non-scholarly opinions.However, you should have the integrity to also deal with the 16 blunder verses.
However, Eugenius is claiming a visible allegory, connecting the heavenly and earthly witnesses, both in the text.
I left out one point.
Invisible allegory will confuse the reader who actually checks the text and finds out that there is nothing to substantively match the allegory. They will feel deceived.
TNC tries to make analogies that simply are not in this ballpark.
I say a new thread should be started dealing solely with Avery's "grammatical argument."
We wouldn't want any more of it getting buried in this thread under another 29 pages of diversion.
Perfect OP for the non-Greek reading Steven Avery Greek grammar thread! "Greek Grammar for Dummies...." (I would be an observer and learner myself, so relax Avery).Here's a relevant question for you Avery.
To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?
What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?
Perfect OP for the non-Greek reading Steven Avery Greek grammar thread! "Greek Grammar for Dummies...." (I would be an observer and learner myself, so relax Avery).
Oh my mistake. I forgot he already started that thread.Posted there too.
Really? Other posters do not see your posts as actually doing that. Perhaps you are claiming to do things that you do not do. More typically you seem to try to avoid responding right to the actual points that other posters make.I take the effort to respond right to point.
And again, you would be wrong. Observe:I read the grammatical part carefully, and made a few important corrections.
Not the Cyprian section.
btw, it was quoted as p. 33-34, when it is p. 35-36.
KJV:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war....And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Cyprian:
“And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.”
From pp. 33-34 in Maestroh's thesis:
Such reasoning, however, cannot explain the following words from Cyprian, an instance that begs for a reference to the Comma if indeed he had it:
In the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King.” Also in the thirty-second Psalm: “By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth.” Also in Isaiah: “A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth.” Also in the cvith Psalm: “He sent His Word, and healed them.” Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same with in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Also in the Apocalypse: “And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.”
Cyprian finds references to Christ as “the Word of God” in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, the Gospel of John, and Revelation but never mentions the Comma, the most explicit testimony to Christ as “the Word” outside of John’s gospel. While many other instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method of citing every instance of Christ as the Word in this treatise, his failure to cite the Comma is best explained by the lack of the phrase in his text(s).
Also, I thought you said he didn't interpret allegorically or mystically?
And again, I thought you said Cyprian was KNOWN for accurate Bible quoting? Did he accurately quote John 1:1 above?
Did he quote Rev. 19:11, 13 accurately?
And again, you would be wrong. Observe:
33 (<---- that's the page number)
To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?
What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?
Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives. His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.24 p. 13
24 In reality, the Comma has two masculines and a neuter, a fact that would seem to refute his argument. Nolan acknowledges this but as we will see shortly, he presents an ingenious answer to that objection.
Hi Bill Brown,
Here is an interesting question from your thesis.
Looking at the thesis, I did not see a reference for Nolan referring to three masculine witnesses or three masculine substantives. And I did not find it on my own search. If there is a reference, please share. Thanks!
And if there is such a reference, it would be a surprising error from Nolan.
And I did not see the ingenious answer as well, although before there is an answer there would need to be a question. Granted, I did not look as hard for the ingenious answer.
Any help appreciated!
=========================
Also, Bill Brown, it would be wonderful if you would acknowledge that the 16 verses really are irrelevant to the grammatical argument!
Why are you quoting and arguing with yourself?
Martin, who was the contra in the heavenly witnesses debate, is said to have written a superb book on the Mark ending, defending authenticity, comparable to Burgon. If I remember, his books have unusual script and formatting.
tom. II. 18#4 (554 pp.), is devoted to the disputed section of Mark xvi. 9-20, which he defends with as much learning and ingenuity as Dean Burgon;
1) and 89% of it is from the 8th century or later (which you suddenly want to invoke when it's 1 John 5:7)
2) and the CJ is missing 100% - not 99% - from TWO of those lines and 99% of the early Latin as well
Irrelevant to the fact that he cites those references IN THE ORDER THEY APPEAR, but no Comma.And he never mentions dozens of similar examples of the word of God (five times in Revelation total).
A ridiculous supposition in light of the fact that he uses SON instead of WORD in his supposed citation of tbe Comma in The Unity of the Church!Assuming his copy of the Latin Bible had Word instead of Son, it is quite unclear whether this would be to purpose.
I'm sure Cyprian would be pleased that he has your approval.It is a fine section, interesting,
The truth hurts, I know.but to claim it as some sort of proof that Cyprian did not have the heavenly witnesses verse is silly.