Questions Avery refuses to answer

logos1560

Well-known member
Let me know when you have read Edward Freer Hills and come up to speed on the back-and-forth on the Sabellian issues.
You demonstrate that you have jumped to a wrong opinion when you incorrectly assume that I have not read Edward Freer Hills' books.
You should know that I have quoted from Hills' writings several times, and I have completely read his two books.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
You demonstrate that you have jumped to a wrong opinion when you incorrectly assume that I have not read Edward Freer Hills' books.
You should know that I have quoted from Hills' writings several times, and I have completely read his two books.
Perhaps Avery should "Let you now when he has read The Unbound Scriptures and come up to speed" himself before arrogantly assuming he's always 2 books ahead of what everyone else has read.

He'd know what you've READ if he would've read what you WROTE.

The irony.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Let me know when you have read Edward Freer Hills and come up to speed on the back-and-forth on the Sabellian issues.

Note: I have never seen Rick Norris write about the interesting theory propounded by Hills, which is directly germane to his topic.

Rick can write about it now.

Maybe he simply read Hills for quote-mining purposes.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
In the 1956 first edition of his book The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills maintained that "the special providence of God has operated in the sphere of the Greek Church and expressed itself in its usage and that therefore the Byzantine text, found in the vast majority of the extant manuscripts, is a trustworthy representative of the divinely inspired original text and the best of all extant texts" (pp. 140-141). I did not notice any mention of 1 John 5:7 in this first edition.

In the expanded 1984 fourth edition of his book printed after the death of Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) with the 1984 copyright by Marjorie J. Hills, someone may have done some editing and even someone may possibly have added some sentences that Edward F. Hills himself may not have written. Some claims in the fourth edition could be considered to conflict with statements in the first edition.

In this fourth edition, a mere speculation is suggested. This edition suggested: "It is possible, therefore, that this Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians" (p. 212). No direct quotations from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are provided to support or prove this claimed "possible" speculation.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In the 1956 first edition of his book The King James Version Defended,
In the expanded 1984 fourth edition of his book printed after the death of Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) with the 1984 copyright by Marjorie J. Hills, someone may have done some editing and even someone may possibly have added some sentences that Edward F. Hills himself may not have written. Some claims in the fourth edition could be considered to conflict with statements in the first edition.

Without your comparing the 1973 2nd edition, or more importantly the 1979 3rd edition, your speculations remain up in the air.
Interesting, though.

Do you have examples of the supposed "could be" conflicts?
Yet again, we would really need the 3rd edition.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In this fourth edition, a mere speculation is suggested. This edition suggested: "It is possible, therefore, that this Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians" (p. 212). No direct quotations from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are provided to support or prove this claimed "possible" speculation.

The quote from Eusebius gives support.

Eusebius In his Ecclesiastical Theology where he refutes some Sabellian opinions of Marcellus says:
"[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius."
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.3-3.4 (PG 24:1001-1004c).

So it would not be difficult to see that the verse was not chosen when there was a split line in the text.

Frederick Nolan earlier made this point in discussing the Anti-Sabellian writings of Eusebius, and that it likely contributed to the verse not being in the fifty copies made for Constantine. I do not believe he know of the specific quote above.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Without your comparing the 1973 2nd edition, or more importantly the 1979 3rd edition, your speculations remain up in the air.
Interesting, though.

Do you have examples of the supposed "could be" conflicts?
Yet again, we would really need the 3rd edition.

Worldcat has the 3rd and 1984 4th edition as both 280 pages, 1973 2nd is 254, 1st 1958 as 158.

That looks to make the 3rd and 4th edition the same, pretty much eliminating speculation of changes after Hills passed.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Worldcat has the 3rd and 1984 4th edition as both 280 pages, 1973 2nd is 254, 1st 1958 as 158.

That looks to make the 3rd and 4th edition the same, pretty much eliminating speculation of changes after Hills passed.
On the copyright page of the 1984 edition, [Reprint 1988]
this is stated:
"Copyright 1956, 1973 by Edward F. Hills.
Copyright 1984 by Marjorie J. Hills"

No copyright by Edward F. Hills is listed for the 1979 Third Edition. Since the copyright for the 1984 edition is by Marjorie J. Hills and since you claim that the third and fourth editions have the same number of pages, it could still be possible that she could be responsible for editing and even for the additional pages in 1979 for which she later claimed a copyright in 1984 (1979 is just a couple years before Hills died). Edward Hills could possibly have been sick or unable to write a period of time before he died. At least the fourth edition suggests that Edward F. Hills did not claim a copyright for the third edition additions.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Do you have examples of the supposed "could be" conflicts?
In his 1956 first edition, Edward F. Hills advocated the text found in the vast majority of the extant Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts while in the fourth edition the acceptance of some non-Greek or minority readings such as 1 John 5:7 is supported. Surely you are aware of the fact that 1 John 5:7 is not found in the vast majority of extant Byzantine manuscripts.

Along with the quotation from Hills as on pp. 140-141, Edward F. Hills also wrote in 1956: "The text of the majority of the manuscripts is the providentially preserved and approved text" (p. 30) and wrote: "The New Testament text, therefore, which is found in the vast majority of the extant manuscripts is the providentially preserved and approved text" (pp. 34-35). Hills also wrote: "The Byzantine text, then, found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts, is the text upon which God, working providentially through the usage of the Greek-speaking Church, has placed the stamp of His approval" (p. 35).

Edward F. Hills noted: "It [referring to 1 John 5:7] was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts" (p. 210).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No copyright by Edward F. Hills is listed for the 1979 Third Edition. ... At least the fourth edition suggests that Edward F. Hills did not claim a copyright for the third edition additions.

Those two sections contradict.

In one you make a definite statement, in the other you say "suggests".
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Edward F. Hills noted: "It [referring to 1 John 5:7] was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts" (p. 210).

This is simply accepting a Metzger error.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In his 1956 first edition, Edward F. Hills advocated the text found in the vast majority of the extant Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts while in the fourth edition the acceptance of some non-Greek or minority readings such as 1 John 5:7 is supported. Surely you are aware of the fact that 1 John 5:7 is not found in the vast majority of extant Byzantine manuscripts.

In the 1983 edition we have:

But God in His mercy did not leave His people to grope after the True New Testament Text. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit He guided them to preserve it during the manuscript period. God brought this to pass through the working of His preserving and governing providence. First, many trustworthy copies of the original New Testament manuscripts were produced by faithful scribes. Second, these trustworthy copies were read and recopied by true believers down through the centuries. Third, untrustworthy copies were not so generally read or so frequently recopied. Although they enjoyed some popularity for a time, yet in the long run they were laid aside and consigned to oblivion. Thus as a result of this special providential guidance the True Text won out in the end, and today we may be sure that the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired Original Text. This is the text which was preserved by the God-guided usage of the Greek Church. Critics have called it the Byzantine text, thereby acknowledging that it was the text in use in the Greek Church during the greater part of the Byzantine period (452-1453). It is much better, however, to call this text the Traditional Text. When we call the text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts the Traditional Text, we signify that this is the text which has been handed down by the God-guided tradition of the Church from the time of the Apostles unto the present day.

That sounds like your description of what Hills wrote on the Byzantine Text, as given in the 1956 edition.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Those two sections contradict.

In one you make a definite statement, in the other you say "suggests".
My two statements did not actually contradict. I made a definite factual statement from the copyright page of the 1988 reprint of the 1984 fourth edition that no copyright is listed for the 1979 third edition.

On the other hand, since I have not seen a copy of a third edition, I took that into account in my observation that "this suggests that Edward F. Hills did not claim a copyright for the third edition additions." A copyright may have possibly been claimed in the third edition although if that was the actual case it would be expected that it would be also noted in the fourth edition.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
That looks to make the 3rd and 4th edition the same, pretty much eliminating speculation of changes after Hills passed.
Not completely or totally. In the fourth edition, no copyright by Edward F. Hills is listed for the 1979 third edition of KJV Defended.

Edward F. Hills' other book Believing Bible Study may provide additional evidence that someone could have added to Hills' books.
I have a copy of the third edition of Hills' Believing Bible Study, which I obtained in 1993.
On its copyright page this is stated:
"First Edition 1967
Second Edition 1977
Third Edition 1991

Copyright 1967, 1977 by Edward F. Hills.
Copyright 1991 by Marjorie J. Hills."

This Third Edition is copyrighted ten years after Edward F. Hills' death in 1981. This third edition has 258 pages.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
… A copyright may have possibly been claimed in the third edition although if that was the actual case it would be expected that it would be also noted in the fourth edition.
There is no legal imperative to claim a copyright.

“As of January 1, 1978, under U.S. copyright law, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. Specifically, “A work is created when it is “fixed” in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.”
 

logos1560

Well-known member
So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius."
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.3-3.4 (PG 24:1001-1004c).

Is your understanding or interpretation of 1 John 5:7 basically the same as the sayings of Sabellius? Would your interpretation of 1 John 5:7 result in the same denial of the Trinity? Perhaps Sabellius and Eusebius were not even referring to 1 John 5:7 since the saying does not match what is stated in the verse. Have you demonstrated that your unpresented "oneness" view is that different from the view of Sabellius?

The saying of Sabellius does not make good sense, and there are serious scriptural problems with his saying. The Scriptures do not teach that the Father and the Son [the Word] are identical to each other or are the same person. God the Father is not identical to the Son or the Word. God the Father is a person. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is also a person distinct from the Father. God the Father was not born of a virgin. God the Father was not baptized by John the Baptist. God the Father did not die on the cross. It has not been soundly demonstrated that the sayings of Sabellius are taught in 1 John 5:7.

In 1 John 5:7, there are three Greek nouns [translated the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost in the KJV]. William D. Mounce observed: "A noun is a word that stands for someone or something (i.e., a person, place, or thing)" (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 46). Do these three Greek nouns refer to three someones (three persons) or to three somethings (three things)? It is should be clear that "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" would refer to three persons, and not to three things. These three persons are one God, not three things are one God. To try to claim that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one identical person would seem to be to try to deny that they are "three."
 

Maestroh

Active member
He said "narrator" not moderator 😉

I didn’t even catch that the first time but it’s hilarious.

Everyone grab something stationary (not stationery, Spencer) as since he has now ALLEGEDLY read my thesis, he knows this is not just a sample of masculine and feminine nouns. And over the next few days I will show he simply wasn’t transparent with this board. If he wants me to take any sort of responsibility for his CLAIMED list of my passages, he needs to give us all a link else it didn’t happen. And he knows this he knows the other examples.

As a reminder: he does not know Greek and possesses no qualifications to address the subject. I’d be hard pressed to say “I know Greek” in terms of infallibility but I only have to know it better than he, admittedly the lowest of bars.

Every single objection he keeps making has been answered, nearly all of them in my thesis that he condescendingly refers to (being intentionally obtuse) as “a paper.” All of this is in there (virtually).

Well, Mr Spencer Who Doesn’t Want People To Know He’s Mr Spencer, on the day you actually write something as peer reviewed and good as that, I’ll be glad to read it. Remember: my thesis isn’t on trial BY YOU. I honestly don’t care what your opinion of it is because your opinion of Greek grammar is based on the background of not knowing ANYTHING about the subject. AT ALL. So pardon me for not taking the objections of the unlearned who refuses to learn very seriously as if the opinion has merit.

But I did get precisely what I knew would happen….despite you saying you wouldn’t pay for it, you either did or you got someone to give you a password, indicating far more concern than you suggested. Now that you’ve read it, I can put it online for free.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Arguments aren’t isolated dots. There is a context to everything. And your fear of actually debating this issue is well founded. It wouldn’t take me very long to tie you in knots on lexical forms and what you call “A YOR ist” but is known to actual Greek students as “Air Wrist” (the proper pronunciation) verbs before making the point your entire grammatical argument is nothing more than you cherry picking ONE scholar while ignoring all the others and clinging to his bad arguments like a life raft.

You’ve made a number false allegations against me as I demonstrated earlier (and then you just ran away from it, didn’t own it).

I’ll never understand how the group who claims to have the only Word of God is chock full of liars, thrice divorced pastors who raise sons that murder their families, and pastors who raise up pedophiles as their successors.

If by your fruits we know them then KJV Onlyism is a rotten banana.
 

Maestroh

Active member
Are you still claiming verses with masculine or feminine nouns as your key refutation of the heavenly witnesses grammar question?

Have you learned yet that these are false analogies?

1) You know there’s more than that to it. You read the examples.

2) Aren’t you the exact same person who doesn’t like all the qualifiers on Granville Sharp’s construct but now you’re suddenly okay with a bunch of qualifiers?

3) Aren’t you also the same person whom on April 29, 2022 on Pure Bible Forum suddenly admitted the existence of an actual example but decided it’s constructio ad sensum?

It is amusing to watch the precise same individual rant about qualifiers from a Greek scholar when it goes against his favorite English bible but who suddenly is all in favor of it when it’s to his vindication.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Everyone grab something stationary (not stationery, Spencer) as since he has now ALLEGEDLY read my thesis, he knows this is not just a sample of masculine and feminine nouns. And over the next few days I will show he simply wasn’t transparent with this board. If he wants me to take any sort of responsibility for his CLAIMED list of my passages, he needs to give us all a link else it didn’t happen. And he knows this he knows the other examples.

Well, Mr Spencer Who Doesn’t Want People To Know He’s Mr Spencer, o

My name is Steven (Avery) Spencer, and my Linked In shows the full name. Once folks got used to my posting as Steven Avery, which goes back many years, it did not make sense to change my pen name on forums.

The original post of Bill Brown was on the old CARM, so there is no current link. If we wants to claim he did not post it, fine, he can just play pretend.

A comparison of his thesis with the CARM post shows it was the same verses in the same order with the same notation system.

And all 16 verses are totally irrelevant to the grammatical argument, it is a huge blunder by Bill Brown.
 
Top