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

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 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.

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:
Why would you write as if Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) is not an antecedent of μαρτυροῦντες in the heavenly witnesses verse?

e.g. when Daniel Wallace is trying to justify the solecism, he considers the neuter nouns as the referents.

Didn't say that.

You made that up out of my post, like a lot things you twist and make up.
 
Last edited:
Why would you write as if Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) is not an antecedent of μαρτυροῦντες in the heavenly witnesses verse?

I talked about the true context.

Meaning simply, that verse 6, is the true context of verses 7 and 8.

e.g. when Daniel Wallace is trying to justify the solecism, he considers the neuter nouns as the referents.

I asked for verification of the truth of your vague concepts from a Grammar publication for your use of the term "whole" (page, name, paragraph, subheading etc).

I also asked for verification for the veracity of your use of the term "whole" from a legitimate Grammar publication (page, name, paragraph, subheading etc).

The masculine participle in τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες refers to τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (v 8), all neuternouns.


Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p. 332.

Didn't mention Dan Wallace (though I've had his Grammar publications for years on CD, but the digital data has now corrupted with age and is unusable).

It's you (not me) who has a beef with Dan Wallace, the manuscript hunter and grammarian.
 
Your writing was giving me a phrase I had not used.



Anyway, this can help you understand the "syntactic parallelism" written by Georgios Babiniotis.

Again, I expect you to include my actual quotes, not isolated words.
My post right above is an example of actually quoting your words.

No you expect people to say what you want them to say. And they don't. ;)
 
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.

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.

He never owns what he writes.
 
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).

"Dr Lawrence Bednar" looks very much like he might be (note "might be" Spencer, but should actually be "might have been" now he's dead) another one of Avery's team.
http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/illustrating-the-lack-of-scholarship-by-internet-c.php

Who died of complications from Covid-19 this year.
https://www.browndawsonflick.com/obituary/Lawrence-Bednar
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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.

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).
 
Your writing was giving me a phrase I had not used.

Anyway, this can help you understand the "syntactic parallelism" written by Georgios Babiniotis.

Again, I expect you to include my actual quotes, not isolated words.
My post right above is an example of actually quoting your words.

Where does Geogrios Babiniotis state the reality of this "syntactic parallelism" in the Greek grammar and language books he's published (reference name of publication, page, paragraph, subheading etc)?

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

Since you will not even have a discussion about the 16 Blunder Verses, this summary is nothing but a laugher.

It only reflects your presuppositional bias.

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).

Far to vague to even register as an insult. Maybe a reference to the wonderful Potamius evidence, which is simply a corroboration of many other evidences, such as Isaac the Jew at the same time, with the use the full heavenly witnesses verse.
 
Didn't say that.

You made that up out of my post, like a lot things you twist and make up.

Look at your confused writing.

Do you agree then, Steven, that all the masculine gender words (in all clauses of both verse 7 and 8 as a "whole") concord with the Father and the Logos as the only possible grammatical (i.e. masculine gender) antecedents? Being the nearest and most logical grammatical antecedents?

If the only possible grammatical antecedents are masculine gender, then you are denying pneuma as an antecedent.
 
I talked about the true context.

Meaning simply, that verse 6, is the true context of verses 7 and 8.

I asked for verification of the truth of your vague concepts from a Grammar publication for your use of the term "whole" (page, name, paragraph, subheading etc).
I also asked for verification for the veracity of your use of the term "whole" from a legitimate Grammar publication (page, name, paragraph, subheading etc).


Didn't mention Dan Wallace (though I've had his Grammar publications for years on CD, but the digital data has now corrupted with age and is unusable).
It's you (not me) who has a beef with Dan Wallace, the manuscript hunter and grammarian.

I was quoting an accurate part of Daniel Wallace.
You should try to follow the conversation.

You still have not quoted where I used the word "whole".
That way we can see if the context supplies your answers.
 
Who justifies this with what you describe as "invisible allegory", whom you also ditched, and now are trying to sneak back into the discussion as if you didn't.

Nope.
I told you before that his allegory theory is not invisible, since he is talking about the text with both the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Do you deliberately try to confuse yourself?
 
Do you deliberately try to confuse yourself?
I would contend that one who can read, write, and translate Latin AND Greek doesn't get confused about much of anything.

Whereas, one who can only read, write, and speak English but thinks he's presenting irrefutable arguments about the grammar of languages he CANT read, write, or translate appears to me to be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic.
 
I would contend that one who can read, write, and translate Latin AND Greek doesn't get confused about much of anything.
Whereas, one who can only read, write, and speak English but thinks he's presenting irrefutable arguments about the grammar of languages he CANT read, write, or translate appears to me to be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic.

Falls to the ground as a big nothing as you can not even discuss the 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown.
 
Back
Top