Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Steven Avery said:
Falls to the ground as a big nothing as you can not even discuss the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown.
Click to expand...
Here's the difference between you and I..... it's not my place to correct someone on Greek grammar when I don't know the language! I've told you this before, yet you keep thinking you're some sort of legend in your own mind by continuing to require myself and others to defend the work of another member here.

Grow up. Be a man and go head to head with Maestroh in a formal debate if you think you've cornered the market on the truth. No excuses. No crying about his "potty mouth." Don't be a coward. Cowards always look for a way to hide. Just do it. Formal. Debate.

Furthermore, even if I DID know the language, it wouldn't be my place to correct what YOU perceive to be errors in anyone's thesis just because you say-so.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
That's exactly what I suspect, that he's making this stuff up out of phrases and sentences from stuff he's Googled on the internet, which he's pieced together in a word processor to appear plausible to unwary and unsuspecting, rather than backing up his claims from a legitimate Greek NT grammar and/or syntax publication (author, page, paragraph, sentence etc).
Click to expand...

You are just stung because of your difficulties trying to hold on to the non-authenticity position.

Noted especially by your inability to handle the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown in his "brilliant" paper
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The basic's Avery and co try to blind people of and divert attention away from, is the true context of verse 6.

1 John 5:6

Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον
ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι. καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια.​

The three mentioned in verse 6, the genuine context leading into verses 7 and 8 are the same three John was actually talking about in verse 7 and 8.
  1. ὕδατος
  2. αἵματος
  3. τὸ Πνεῦμά
You don't see Avery talking about this context (which admitted in an earlier post).
Click to expand...

That is why the short solecism version is a wooden repetition, and can not explain properly the Witness of God.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
By memory (which could be wrong) you are quoting a second hand email to Nick Sayers (correct?). How do we know it's legit, or that it's not been distorted and misrepresented by you (or Sayer's), with ... dot dot dot, bit's deliberately omitted?
Click to expand...

The correspondence is discussed by Nick Sayers on a fascinating Facebook thread on the NT Textual Criticism forum in 2021. (I was not a participant, Bill Brown was involved.) And I believe there was more than one email exchange, as Nick asked Georgios to look over a page with contra argumentation.

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Sept 2021
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/4635569143196716/

And I also copied the full Facebook discussion over to my home forum.

And there is a wiki-style page:

Johannine Comma and Georgios Babiniotis
Voulgaris Vindicated by Leading Greek Expert
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Johannine_Comma_and_Georgios_Babiniotis

If you want more interaction with Nick Sayers, he is easily available on Facebook and Messenger, has a weekly live stream with voice, and has a group called Textus Receptus Academy.

So far, I don't think he has ever posted on CARM.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
That is why the short solecism version is a wooden repetition, and can not explain properly the Witness of God.
Click to expand...
What is verse 9 talking about?
What is the witness of God?
What has He testified of his Son?

Verses 6 and 8 have the same 3 witnesses....the Spirit, the water, and the blood.

Verse 7 not only introduces 2 new witnesses (the Father and the Word) to testify of Jesus Christ (the Word testifies of Jesus Christ???), but it introduces completely different names at verse 7 that arent used anywhere else in chapter 5.....The Holy Ghost for the Spirit and the Word for the Son.

Verse 7 doesn't belong. Thinking people know this.
 
Unbound68 said:
Here's the difference between you and I..... it's not my place to correct someone on Greek grammar when I don't know the language! I've told you this before, yet you keep thinking you're some sort of legend in your own mind by continuing to require myself and others to defend the work of another member here.
Click to expand...

The contradictions of Bill Brown in the 16 Blunder Verses are easy to see, simple logic.
They are even seen in his own self-contradictory writings in the thesis.

To pretend that you cannot understand the problem is just a ruse to avoid learning and speaking the truth.

You and TNC spend a lot of effort trying to find tricks and traps against what I share. Fair enough.
However, it is a joke that you can not deal with the simple logic that would really advance the discussion, iron sharpeneth.
 
Unbound68 said:
Verse 7 not only introduces 2 new witnesses (the Father and the Word) to testify of Jesus Christ (the Word testifies of Jesus Christ???), but it introduces completely different names at verse 7 that arent used anywhere else in chapter 5.....The Holy Ghost for the Spirit and the Word for the Son
Click to expand...

The three heavenly witnesses are all different from the three earthly witnesses. The earthly witnesses is best seen as a reference to the crucifixion, as discussed here:

heavenly and earthly witnesses - two different usages of pneuma/spirit
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...s-two-different-usages-of-pneuma-spirit.7244/

Thus the Spirit of truth of verse 6 is not the same as the spirit of verse 8.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
To pretend that you cannot understand the problem is just a ruse to avoid learning and speaking the truth.

However, it is a joke that you can not deal with the simple logic that would really advance the discussion, iron sharpeneth.
Click to expand...

Readers can see that your appeals to simple logic are inconsistent since you do not practice what you preach. You ignore the inconsistencies and contractions in your own human KJV-only reasoning. Instead of really advancing the discussion to the truth, readers can see that your focus seems to be on accusing and attacking other posters. Your accusations and personal attacks, which in effect insult the integrity and intelligence of others, do not advance the discussion. Because someone does not agree with your subjective opinions does not mean that they lack integrity or that they avoid learning and speaking the truth. Instead of trying to blame others, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you fail to make a convincing case for your claims.

Instead of believing that three distinct heavenly witnesses are one God, your hidden oneness view seems to believe that one God is seen in three economies, three functions, three roles, three modes [a "economic trinity" of one person]. It is unclear whether you believe the three to be three distinct witnesses. In what sense do you consider the heavenly witnesses to be three? Perhaps you try to claim that the three nouns are one unit in order to try to deny that the three nouns are three distinct heavenly witnesses [persons].
Do you appeal to human reasoning or logic instead of accepting scriptural truth? Do you consider the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity based on the Scriptures to be illogical?
 
Last edited:
Unbound68 said:
No ruse. Maestroh is fully capable of defending his work.
Click to expand...
Bill only throws sand.

Bill Brown has no defense for including verses with masculine and feminine nouns in a supposed overthrow and refutation of the grammatical argument. Bill just relies on the cowardice and lack of integrity of other contras in order to avoid acknowledging his blunder.

It is all so obvious.
Bill Brown even refutes his own attempt within his thesis.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Possible freudian slip in this sentence.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Michael Maynard (1955-2014) may have passed on some contact info. Or that might well have been info on Chris H. Pappas or another writer. I would have to search old emails on another puter to find out.

In summary, I really doubt that I had any direct contact with Larry Bednar. And, while I appreciate what he said about the contra nonsense from Bill Brown, I did not use his writing on the heavenly witnesses. I have three references to him on the PureBibleForum, only noting that he wrote this or that.

The contras have all been hurt by the Bill Brown vitriol mentioned by Larry Bednar. And they are intimidated away from an honest inquiry into heavenly witnesses studies. They write in a black hole vortex, where the goal is tricks and traps, and there is really no interest in seeking out truth. Everything is to be manipulated towards the ends of belligerence and bluster. TNC and JW Matt on BVDB develop little niches based on convoluted argumentation.

And nobody can speak the truth about the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown. After all, that would mean a de facto acknowledgment that I was ahead of the curve in getting to the truth. And that is, so far, too hot for any of the contras to handle.

Integrity first.
 
Last edited:
Those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity will applaud the Bill Brown opposition to authenticity. After all, he is the leader of the pack (vroom, vroom.)

The will not be able to defend his 16 Blunder Verses, falsely claimed to overthrow and refute the grammatical argument.
 
The context flows naturally and conceptually through all three verses, from the three in verse 6 to the same three in verse 7 and the same three in verse 8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top