Questions Avery refuses to answer

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is the full post, the shorter one was posted by accident while I was working on this fuller one. Responses should be to this one! :)

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.

The original post of Bill Brown was on the old CARM, so there is no current link to the original. If Bill Brown wants to claim he did not post it, or that we don't have a faithful copy, fine, he can just play pretend.

The post from CARM was used on the Facebook forum, NT Textual Criticism, in August 2018, hosted by James Snapp. It was specifically referenced and discussed, and is quite a fascinating thread, as is another one that had the video where I was interviewed by Joshua Gibbs on the heavenly witnesses authenticity. And the CARM post from Bill Brown is quoted in full by James Snapp who was trying to use it to argue against heavenly witnesses authenticity.

Also, a comparison of his thesis (no problem with the word) with the CARM post shows it has the same verses in the same order with the same notation system. The CARM post copy is better for the HTML. The false argument using verses with masculine or feminine nouns in the CARM post are also in the thesis, in a less bellicose way. The word "overthrow" is not used in the thesis but it has the word "refute" and "overturn".

Finding just one instance of gender disagreement refutes Nolan’s argument. ... There are. however, a number of other passages that overturn Nolan’s “grammatical argument. ... There are at many other instances in both the NT and LXX that refute Nolan’s argument.57

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

It has poisoned the debate on the heavenly witnesses grammar since heavenly witnesses contras, like James Snapp, Jr., have accepted the false argument, sans critical sensibility. It also gives us insight into the limitations of the supposed Greek savvy of USA seminaries.

It is fine to reference this paper as a thesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. Since it has such an amazing error, in its most important argument, it is simply an embarrassment to DTS.

Now, the paper has lots of other arguments. As I mentioned earlier, it is actually better than I expected, despite the huge omissions and typical contra errors. And I was used to Bill Brown's nonsense reactive posting on the forums, so I find the thesis refreshing by comparison.

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

Here is the simple summary.

Slight tweaks to the previous post.
Let’s review.

1) Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) and Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) make it crystal clear that the solecism involves neuter nouns, not any verses 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!

So now we will see if Bill Brown will simply acknowledge the error.
That would be refreshing!

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

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

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.
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Active member
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.

So in other words…..we have to rely on your edited version.
Got it.

I missed the part where you did really anything but quote a guy.

You got any actual scholarship to contribute?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So in other words…..we have to rely on your edited version.
Got it.

See the longer post. There is no "edited version", that is a false claim.

Your full CARM post was quoted on Facebook, the NT Textual Criticism forum, on August 23, 2018, and is word-for-word identical to what has been posted here on CARM.

Here is the url.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...27931837529&reply_comment_id=2118285211591801

And I did :) thinking that you might claim the version posted here was not yours, or changed.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I missed the part where you did really anything but quote a guy.
You got any actual scholarship to contribute?

In this case the scholarship is simple.
Showing how your CARM post and DTS thesis are grossly defective.

The quotes I give are from the two main gentlemen who defended the grammatical argument, Eugenius Bulgaris and Frederick Nolan, both referenced in your thesis. So you should have known that verses with masculine or feminine nouns are simply not relevant.

Let's look at three of your quotes, it will help us understand how you erred.

Concerning the grammatical problem, a brief history will be given showing that Frederick Nolan first proposed the details of the grammatical problem in 1815. The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives. Examples such as 1 Cor 13:13, 2 John 1 and others will validate that no legitimate grammatical issue exists. p. iii

Here you properly express the argument. Then, amazingly, you immediately reference two verses that do not apply because they have masculine and/or feminine substantives.

Despite these strong arguments suggesting that Nolan’s claim is erroneous, the strongest refutation is finding similar occurrences of grammatical gender disagreement. ... Finding just one instance of gender disagreement refutes Nolan’s argument. p. 20

Here you are moving away from the truth above, and just looking for "gender disagreement." You forgot that the disagreement must be neuter substantives with masculine (or feminine) grammar. Oops.

To simplify Nolan’s argument: adjectives and substantives must be the same gender (concord) p. 13

This shows clearly how you erred. You "simplified" the argument into any gender discord. Which you yourself showed above is NOT the grammatical argument, which only applies to neuter nouns and masculine (or feminine) grammar. This was pointed out clearly and excellently by Eugenius Bulgaris.
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Active member
There is a Trintiarian board at CARM where these issues and claims are properly hashed out. People can discuss the Athanasian Creed and whether God exists with distinct consciousnesses as three co-equal, coeternal consubstantial persons. And you can discuss what is an ontological person.

Feel free to post on the forum designed for the discussion.

Here’s his answer to this question:


“100% plus Oneness. Always have been, plan always to be.” (His words).

So we’ll just save everyone his demand to post elsewhere (where he will no more answer straightforwardly than here) and simply document the information he fears people will learn.
 

Attachments

  • 84CBAD59-23EC-408F-A27E-C23BDA8D142C.png
    287.6 KB · Views: 4

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here’s his answer to this question:


“100% plus Oneness. Always have been, plan always to be.” (His words).

So we’ll just save everyone his demand to post elsewhere (where he will no more answer straightforwardly than here) and simply document the information he fears people will learn.
Thanks! That is what I wrote 23 years ago, and I just saw it again last night from a Facebook discussion url on the heavenly witnesses interview with Joshua Gibbs, which made me :). At the I was likely still attending the UPC church on Long Island. The Messianic fellowships have been what you might call Trinity lite, as well as the AOG church in Asheville.

And In the Facebook thread with the interview there is a separate section where I discuss my doctrinal history. I’ll plan on bringing it over when back at home base.

My position today is Biblicist - staying very close to exactly what the pure Bible scriptures in the AV say. That leads to the ability to fellowship in grace with various doctrinal positions.

However, when a person is jumping around corruption versions, no real bond of the Spirit can exist. As a simple example, one of dozens, they can not accept as scripture that “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16 AV) in Jesus Christ. Losing even just that one scripture teaching poisons Christology sharing, and is enough reason to discard the corruption versions and move to the Textus Receptus Bible, of which the best is the AV. It is a blessing to have the pure and perfect Bible as a comfort and guide, sustenance.

As a Biblicist, I avoid speculative constructions that are not directly in the Bible, which I often see in the explanations given by various Oneness, Trinity and other doctrinal positions.

Our focus is best on the Gospel. The blood of Jesus shed as an atonement, which landed on the mercy seat under Golgotha. The death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And the pure Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

This AM I had some relaxed time outdoors on the grass waiting for a friend, so I enjoyed taking the time to consider the lilies and write the above! Maybe, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, it will be of assistance to some of my brothers and sisters who find themselves enmeshed in doctrinal wars to the detriment of their connection and love for the Lord Jesus.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Here is a simple question for Bill Brown:

Do you assert that verses with masculine or feminine nouns refute the heavenly witnesses grammatical argument, as given by Eugenius Bulgaris and Frederick Nolan?

Thanks!
 

logos1560

Well-known member
My position today is Biblicist - staying very close to exactly what the pure Bible scriptures in the AV say.
You fail to demonstrate that your unclear "oneness" view is Biblicist since it would conflict with what 1 John 5:7 and some other verses in the KJV state and teach. 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 only one person would seem to be to try to deny what 1 John 5:7 says concerning the fact that they are three.

You are also not staying close to exactly what the KJV says by adding to it human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of man. You have not demonstrated that the KJV says your KJV-only opinions.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Hi Bill Brown,

1) If you have any examples with only neuter nouns, you can share the verses or examples. Other than the circular attempt with 1 John 5:8 (which is simply the "solecism anyway" argument). It would be an interesting study.

However, even interesting claims,, which advance the discussion, would not fix the blunder of claiming 16 verses to overthrow the grammatical argument that are obviously irrelevant. You really should come clean and acknowledge that error.

2) Only one qualifier on the Eugenius Bulgaris explanation. Constructio ad sensum, which is with groups of people or individual people like a child. If you think there are other qualifiers, please share.

The Granville Sharp "Rule" has definitions that simply do not work, absurd distinctions between the various ways to say the Lord Jesus Christ and other words, and, if you think it is worth any energy at all, I've seen about 10 qualifications. The best discussion was on the old CARM, but I recently saw a fairly good article that made the qualifications a major part of the discussion. .

3) Since the discussion was finally taking place in a cohesive discussion board, due to wanting to look at your blunder OVERTHROW post, I wanted to make sure the constructio ad sensum issue was not missed.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hi Bill Brown,

Here is an interesting question from your thesis.

His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.24

24 In reality, the Comma has two masculines and a neuter, a fact that would seem to refute his argument. Nolan acknowledges this but as we will see shortly, he presents an ingenious answer to that objection. - p. 13

This refutes Nolan’s earlier statement that this is a solecism demanding three masculine substantives. p. 20-21

Looking at the thesis, I did not see a reference for Nolan referring to three masculine witnesses or three masculine substantives. And I did not find it on my own search. If there is a reference, please share. Thanks!

And if there is such a reference, it would be a surprising error from Nolan.

And I did not see the ingenious answer as well, although before there is an answer there would need to be a question. Granted, I did not look as hard for the ingenious answer.

Any help appreciated!

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

Also, Bill Brown, it would be wonderful if you would acknowledge that the 16 verses really are irrelevant to the grammatical argument!
Edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
On this topic, one thing I will complement the thesis paper is on p. 14. It is pointed out that Frederick Nolan references the verses John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13, where Nolan goes on an excursus that involves the personality of the Holy Spirit. As the Naselli and Gons paper showed, and also the Daniel Wallace paper, everything there is simply normative grammar with the masculine paraclete as the referent, not the neuter pneuma. However, it has been surprisingly common over many centuries for writers to make this error of trying to see personalization of the Holy Spirit in those three verses. And it is surprising that Nolan puts this in his figure attraction section.

My purpose is always to seek honest scholarship :).
 

logos1560

Well-known member
However, when a person is jumping around corruption versions, no real bond of the Spirit can exist. As a simple example, one of dozens, they can not accept as scripture that “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16 AV) in Jesus Christ. Losing even just that one scripture teaching poisons Christology sharing, and is enough reason to discard the corruption versions

Are your inconsistent, vague, non-edifying, extreme accusations against present English Bibles (accusations that would seem to depend upon use of the fallacy of composition) be "writing with integrity" and "honest scholarship"? Do you clearly define your terms of accusation, prove them to be true, and apply them consistently and justly? Could a consistent, just application of your accusations suggest that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision were "corruption versions"? Are you unaware of the fact that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles have one, two, or more of the claimed dozens of examples that KJV-only advocates will allege? Was the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from which the KJV translators borrowed many renderings a "corruption version"?

Where do the Scriptures state that no real bond of the Holy Spirit can exist if a person reads an English Bible rather than the KJV or reads more than one English Bible as the KJV translators did?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
However, when a person is jumping around corruption versions, no real bond of the Spirit can exist. As a simple example, one of dozens, they can not accept as scripture that “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16 AV) in Jesus Christ. Losing even just that one scripture teaching poisons Christology sharing, and is enough reason to discard the corruption versions and move to the Textus Receptus Bible, of which the best is the AV.

As a Biblicist, I avoid speculative constructions that are not directly in the Bible,

Would a KJV-only poster's use of subjective, negative, undefined, non-edifying, smear accusations [such as "corruption versions"] without the presenting any objective, sound textual measures or criteria that were demonstrated to be applied consistently and justly as the basis for the claimed analysis of original-language texts or of Bible translations suggest the avoiding of speculative constructions not directly in the Bible?

Is the term "corruption versions" found directly in the Bible?
Is the term "Biblicist" found directly in the Scriptures?

Your subjective KJV-only position has not been demonstrated to be "Biblicist".
 

Unbound68

Active member
Steven Avery said:
Just referencing that some stale scholarship has supported Yahweh since the late 1800s really does not add much to the discussion.

Enter Nolan, Bulgaris, and others from the 1800s in this thread...

More irony from the non-greek (and non-hebrew) reading, speaking or translating one: Steven Avery Spencer.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Interestingly, neither Bill Brown nor any contra poster has been willing to actually touch the topic of why false analogy verses were given in the earlier CARM post, or its inclusion in the DTS thesis.

What Eugenius said was crystal clear, it is only neuter nouns that are at issue, and the analogy verses all include masculine and/or feminine nouns.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Which strengthens my point in highlighting your hypocrisy. Of course you missed it. That nagging pain you feel is from shooting yourself in the foot.
And when did Bulgaris die?

Bulgaris wrote on the heavenly witnesses in 1782, the relevant date, and it was published in the English work by Knittel in 1785. He passed in 1806. My reference is to how Yahweh (Jupiter) corruption made inroads in the latter 1800s, although interestingly Tregelles was one who defended Jehovah against the German error.

What do you think I missed?

e.g. on the Jehovah issue there is some wonderful scholarship from the 1700s and 1800s, such as David Paul Drach in the 1800s. Five dissertations in the Reland book in the 1700s defended Jehovah. And I did not say that all 1800s scholarship is stale, quite obviously. The Yahweh error is a particular bad error. The theophoric names in the Masoretic Text is clearly a refutation, along with other wonderful evidences.

So I sense you are more interested in the posturing than the actual facts of the matter.
Why not up your game?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I see you removed your comment that you never did any translating. Why? And why does your post #136 not show that you edited it?

I misread, and thought at first you said I did claim to do translating.

And I have no idea how Xenforo here is showing edits.

What do you think I missed?
 
Last edited:
Top