Questions Avery refuses to answer

Steven Avery

Well-known member
All of the Greek speaking scribes who handed down the Word to us in the Original Greek did not have a problem with THEIR grammer. That is over 500 Greek scribes that God used to give us the New Testament.
You are falsely mind-reading. Generally scribes just copy their texts.

The Macedonians discussed the grammar problem with Gregory Nazianzen.

One ms. Tried to explain the masculine by the Trinity.

Erasmus was well aware of the grammatical problems.
 

Maestroh

Active member
Eugenius Bulgaris made this crystal clear.

So….you’re just quoting people making claims. You don’t have any way of knowing at all, you’re just quoting a claim and completely ignoring the 99% of Greek scholars who say otherwise.

So you’re ignoring:
- 100% of over 1,000 years of Greek MS
- 100% of all non-Latin MS
- 99.9% of every person who ever commentated in Greek

And you actually think that’s a strong argument?

I mean, using your approach, anything can be proven.

So after the six years it finally took you to get so angry, you finally read the thesis and your comeback is….the same refuted nonsense.

Is that what you’re going with still?
 

Maestroh

Active member
Well folks, we have our answer: he came back with a quote from someone and has no idea whether that person is right, he just knows it’s something that can defend this obvious intrusion.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is what Bill Brown wrote in the earlier CARM.

Examples That Overthrow The Alleged Grammar Argument
A first (and easy) example comes from the same author who wrote 1 John. It's the opening of 2 John 1:
Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ
In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).
Boom. There was the sound of the grammatical argument hitting the floor. But you have other examples. Keep in mind some knowledge of Greek is necessary to comprehend this grammatical discord. There are probably close to 100 examples of discord in the OT and NT combined.
These include:

Matt 25:32 [τα εθνη (N)…αυτους (m)];
Mark 3:8 [πλῆθος (N)…ἀκούσαντες (m)];
Mark 5:41 [τοῦ παιδίου (N) λέγει αὐτῇ (f)];
Luke 2:13 [πλῆθος (N) στρατιᾶς (f)…αἰνούντων (m) …λεγοντων (m)];
Acts 13:48 [τὰ ἔθνη (N) …ὅσοι (m)…τεταγμένοι (m)];
Acts 14:4 [τὸ πλῆθος (N) …καὶ οἱ (m)…οἱ (m)…];
Acts 15:17 [τὰ ἔθνη (N) ἐφ’ οὓς (m)];
Acts 26:17 [τῶν ἐθνῶν (N) εἰς οὓς (m)];
Rom 2:14 [ἔθνη (N)…οὗτοι (m)];
Rom 9:23-24 [σκεύη (N)...οὓς (m)];
Gal 4:19 [τεκνία (N) …οὓς (m)];
Eph. 2:11 [τὰ ἔθνη (N)…οἱ λεγόμενοι (m)];
Eph 4:17-18 [ἔθνη (N)…ἐσκοτισμένοι (m)… ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι (m)…αὐτοῖς (m)];
Col 2:19 [κεφαλήν (f) ἐξ οὗ ]

Still your claim?
If it were true, why not make the claim in your “Internal Support” paper?
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Active member
What Michael Maynard wrote is clear, and this section is available as well as what is in his book.


Again - you present nothing original, no thought at all.

Maynard quoted Thiele's OPINION of Cyprian - and while he was at it, he didn't even bother to tell us what manuscript he was quoting, so how would he know? Maynard, of course, was not dumb enough to demand such information that obviously isn’t around, but his next generation Kool-Aid consumers who cannot read Latin and think the atomic bombs that ended WW2 never existed actually try to argue that way.

The article Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum? is helpful for both Cyprian and Augustine, so in the future I'll see about German quotes with translation.


In other words, he doesn't read German, either, and he hasn't even read this article he's citing.

Over and over and over and over again - it's the same thing.

We're not impressed with quote mining.
And I would like to see how Strouse "insists" and if he gives more information, but there is no quote and no available Strouse text.


Well, then all you have to do is buy the book from D.A. Waite like I did.

I mean, gee, is it really this difficult? Huh?
Thiele (1923-2016) passed in 2016.


Well then he doesn't speak English then or any other language - does he?

Or will you suggest he “possibly” might if we listen closely?


Last time we discussed this, you gave no specifics.


Being accused of not giving specifics by you is about like being called a cult killer by Jim Jones.

Also - given your propensity to make stuff up out of thin air - care to tell me when this was?


You would not even take a position on whether the supposed interpolation was early in the Sabellian controversy era, or during the Arian controversies or some other time.

You mean when I told you (wait for it) it's a LATIN corruption? I mean, being told I didn’t take a position when I did is an interesting interpretation of it. Now, if your complaint is that I can’t say, “Little Nicky Sayers of the Outback inserted this passage in manuscript 867-5309 (the “Jenny” manuscript) while drunk on a three-day bender,” welcome to reality (as Dr Peter Head told you years ago when you thought you’d made some fantastic discovery in Vaticanus that everyone else already knew).


Then you never really discussed would what be involved in the supposed interpolation, which fits so beautifully with Johannine style and creates an incredible parallelism and fixes the Greek text grammatically by Latin to Greek translation and supplies the connection to verse 9 and the witness of God.

Go Google the phrase "front loading your investigation" and see what you learn.
None of what you write here is even true.
It isn't Johannine style - and since you've SUPPOSEDLY read my thesis now, you know this.

It doesn't create a parallelism - that's just a made up claim

It doesn't fix a Greek text with Latin, it doesn't fix it with Greek, either

It ignores the entire context of the book of 1 John - which if you read my thesis you know this, too.

So given that you've supposedly read it now and most of what you just said was addressed in it - why did you come here and make these claims again in your loaded question?
The interpolation theory has no actual manuscript evidence.


You mean where:

a) where it doesn't exist in early manuscripts

b) does exist in a few later ones

c) doesn't match in those cases word for word?

That is exactly what the manuscript evidence shows..............in both languages in fact.
So how can you say "there's no actual manuscript evidence" when that's the only thing the evidence actually does show?

This is your common "anger" or "rage" fabrication.


EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maestroh

Active member
You do not even give the Eugenius text in the paper.

I discuss Eugenius, though.

Don’t I?

You see, I’m not allowed in a Master’s thesis to act like an internet poster who can’t read a foreign language. I have to work within the limitations of my knowledge and expand them during the process which is happened.

Maybe you need to realize a thesis isn’t written so that ignorant internet posters can have talking points for their online combat. I never expected you to accept it but guess what?

Your opinion doesn’t matter. I realize that might be a shocking revelation to you, but it’s true.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I discuss Eugenius, though.
Don’t I?

Clearly, however you should have the text since it is historically by far the single most important text discussion on the grammatical gender problem.

Leaving it out really only makes sense if you want to avoid the real scholarship debate.
 

Maestroh

Active member
Clearly, however you should have the text since it is historically by far the single most important text discussion on the grammatical gender problem.

Leaving it out really only makes sense if you want to avoid the real scholarship debate.

So just to be clear…YOU have given your opinion of what I should have done, which included doing what you do online and pretending I know languages I do not.

You clearly are completely unfamiliar with how the process and, more importantly, how time and space limitations work. I don’t have 20 years to give my ignorant opinion in thousands of internet posts and then add more later. I get one year to work on it, and guess what? I don’t get to pretend I know languages I don’t. Profs will bury you in that. Now - if this were a dissertation for a doctorate, that is a different thing. But I’m working with time and word constraints, too. I can’t just spew out as a forum post any dumb idea that comes to mind.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So just to be clear…YOU have given your opinion of what I should have done,

On BVDB, there was a specific request for reviews of your work.

The omission of the Eugenius text when discussing the grammatical argument was very strange.

My conjecture is that you did not want to really give the core of the argument.
 

Maestroh

Active member
Clearly, however you should have the text since it is historically by far the single most important text discussion on the grammatical gender problem.

Leaving it out really only makes sense if you want to avoid the real scholarship debate.

It’s also not my fault the KJVO pamphleteers largely don’t know of the grammatical argument through Bulgaris, they have no idea who he was. They got their idea from Nolan.

And accusing me of avoiding scholarly debate is still amusing coming from the poster so bold online EDITED

I think you need to realize the reason I repeatedly level you intellectually is because of how graduate level scholars are forced to examine ideas. We don’t get away with the non-sequitor approach you favor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maestroh

Active member
On BVDB, there was a specific request for reviews of your work.

The omission of the Eugenius text when discussing the grammatical argument was very strange.

My conjecture is that you did not want to really give the core of the argument.

Your conjecture of “didn’t mention X” would have occurred regardless. It’s been your favorite tactic for years.

Where was there a specific request for reviews of my work? Did you make this back before you got banned for your anti-Trinitarian refusal to answer that question?

Or did someone else do that?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It’s also not my fault the KJVO pamphleteers largely don’t know of the grammatical argument through Bulgaris, they have no idea who he was. They got their idea from Nolan.

So you were not really trying to do a scholarly paper, you were only concerned with countering some AV defenders from c. 2000.

This omission (looking at Nolan and Dabney rather without Eugenius) was fixed by our posting the Eugenius text.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Still your claim?
If it were true, why not make the claim in your “Internal Support” paper?
You could simply acknowledge that when you wrote that OVERTHROW piece you simply did not understand the grammatical argument.

=======

This might be related to an unfamiliarity with Eugenius.

Here is where Eugenius shows the solecism question applies to masculine or feminine grammar, with neuter nouns.

3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Still your claim?
If it were true, why not make the claim in your “Internal Support” paper?

No answer.

Actually, it looks like Bill Brown made the exact same blunder in the paper, albeit in a less bombastic manner.
On p. 21-22.

This is such a major blunder (Bill quoted Nolan that the solecism only involves neuter nouns, although Bulgaris is even more helpful) that it puts the whole paper under a cloud. How could his reader(s) miss this scholastic absurdity?

This is really the key argument in the paper, and it falls to the ground. Did Bill come with this blunder by himself, or was he following a poster named Jim some years back?

Bill Brown was concerned about omission critiques, saying the number of word limitation was a factor. Fair enough. However, there is no excuse for claiming that verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns refute or overthrow the grammatical argument!
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Let’s review.

1) Bulgaria and Nolan make it crystal clear that the solecism involves neuter nouns, not any clauses that have masculine or feminine nouns.

2) Bill Brown claims to overthrow the grammatical argument - by referencing 16 verses that all have masculine or feminine nouns. This absurdity is his key argument to defend the short text grammar.

3) Steven Avery points out that this is a massive fail of Logic 101 - an elementary blunder.

4) Bill Brown has no answer, and does not want to accept the hard truth — so he blusters and claims I am making up rules!

==============

Oh, what a web!
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Would it be an elementary blunder to assume a poster is truly and soundly defending 1 John 5:7 if that poster does not state and explain what he understands the verse to state and teach? Does he understand the meaning of the words he tries to claim to defend? Would it be a massive failure in Logic 101 if a poster cannot state and say to what "three Greek nouns" refer--whether to persons, places, or things? In what sense are these three nouns distinct as being three somethings? Are these nouns three persons, three places, or three things? Are these three nouns one person and two things?

According to this poster's unclear ramblings, he would seem to deny that the three Greek nouns [translated "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" in the KJV] refer to three persons.
Would that suggest this poster may possibly deny that the Father is a person?
Would a denial that the three nouns refer to persons in effect deny that the Word [the Son--the Lord Jesus Christ] is a person?
Does this poster accept or deny that the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is a person?

Does this poster possibly believe that these three nouns are things? His seeming denial that these three are three persons could suggest that.
Does he believe that these three are three names or titles for one person or three modes of one person?
Why does this poster, who attacks and accuses those who believe what 1 John 5:7 states, avoid and dodge stating clearly what he believes this verse to teach? Does this poster have no answers concerning what he believes 1 John 5:7 teaches?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Would it be an elementary blunder to assume a poster is truly and soundly defending 1 John 5:7 if that poster does not state and explain what he understands the verse to state and teach?

Subjective, and there is no issue of an elementary blunder, which are factual errors. Is the heavenly witnesses an ontological teaching? Some say yes, some no. Or is it about the Witness of God to Jesus Christ? Are the earthly witnesses about the crucifixion? Were the Sabellians verse supporters and this contributed to dropping the verse? (That does not mean that the verse is actually Sabellian, the first thing to do is to study and learn and understand the history.) What is the economic Trinity, and does that apply here?

And I have written about these topics, and in some cases I believe that the specific interpretation is open to the individual Christian. The authenticity of the verse does not depend on its many interpretations and how you see the wonderful parallelism.

Nice diversion from the grammatical blunder of Bill Brown.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
I have written about these topics, and in some cases I believe that the interpretation is open to the individual Christian.
You have not written clearly and plainly about the clear meaning of 1 John 5:7. You divert away from giving clear answers to direct questions concerning the meaning of 1 John 5:7. Perhaps you want the interpretation to be open and vague in order to permit the denial of the Trinity and the acceptance of heresy. You may not want the hard truth about your doctrinal views to be known.
 
Last edited:
Top