I agree. His style of argumentation, his made up phrases, and the resurrection of arguments long ago forsaken or completely ignored by scholars who are/were actually qualified to speak/write on the subject of Greek grammar is going to accomplish nothing but a further muddying of the waters on this issue.Which/what NT grammar publication backs up your definition of this "unit" you speak of?
Which/what NT grammar publication backs up your definition of this "whole" you speak about?
List the name, page, author etc.
This could be just something you and your buddies conjured/made up (for all we know) out of a series of cut paste bits and pieces from internet Googling, designed to look plausible.
Has anyone else here ever actually read in a Greek grammar anything like Steven has been describing as a "whole" and a "unit"?
Having owned (actually still own) and studied several NT, Classical, LXX grammars and books on Greek syntax and prose, there's just something not right about your statements. For a start, they are intentionally vague and highly evasive, and judging by your past track record of overconfidence and acrimonious bravado over what ultimately proves to be erroneous research, I definitely smell a rat somewhere in all of this.
I think he's under the mistaken impression that he's actually spearheading the modern understanding of certain "evidences" he brings forth......like something that was already written about in the early 1900s (1908?) yet he implied he and his "team" had newly discovered the evidence or some such thing (Maestroh will remember).
And if thats not bad enough, his KJVO-inspired and newly created variant on Josh 24:15 is going to screw up the next 15 generations!
It's like he's just trying to create an imagined legacy for himself.
Last edited: