TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The grammar has its grammatical gender, as does each individual noun. Take the heavenly witnesses verse, where Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) Is neuter. I have never heard it said that Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα is not in concord with the masculine grammar of the verse. That would imply grammatical discord, which is not the case. The nouns are considered as a unit.
Similarly, no one would say there is grammatical discord in 1 Corinthians 13:13 between faith, hope and charity, feminine nouns, and the neuter grammar.
1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity.
In fact, Bill Brown on p. iii of his thesis uses the Corinthians verse to try to imply discord analogous to the earthly witnesses solecism. While he defined the grammatical argument properly:
Bill then turns around and gives verses that simply are very different, with neuter grammar and masculine or feminine substantives, and have no validity as counters (overthrow, refutation) to the grammatical argument.
As with the 16 Blunder Verses, you should have the integrity to call out this inconsistency and error.
You seem to use the term "whole" as if it defined the syntactic "unit" which you speak of, yet you haven't defined exactly what the "whole" or the "unit" is.
Is the "whole" the two verses (7 and 8) in there entirety together, which defines your "unit"?
Or is your "whole"/"unit" what I refer to as 1 John 5:7(Clause-C) ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καi τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα?
Is the "whole" exactly the same as the "unit"?
Or is the "whole" something different to the "unit", if so, what is it exactly/specifically? And what are they exactly?
Bring some clarity to the discussion please.