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

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Excellent! With all the arrogant blustering from Avery to both yourself and Maestroh about grammar (of which he knows nothing), he should be made to answer those questions fully.

He did say straight out that he understands issues "better than" us.

A very good example of the person without Latin background understanding the issues better than the one with background. It was quite easy to see that your original translation attempts were simply wrong.

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

In that sense it is analogous to finding the blunders of Bill Brown in his attacks on the grammatical argument using verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns.

His words. He's got to own them.

 

[Steven Avery]

Excellent! With all the arrogant blustering from Avery to both yourself and Maestroh about grammar (of which he knows nothing), he should be made to answer those questions fully.

Are you really trying to defend the Bill Brown blunder claiming the overthrow of the grammatical argument with 16 irrelevant verses?

Are you really trying to defend TNC's junk translation of Cassiodorus, which he has retracted?

Thus are the specific two issues that are referenced.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Are you really trying to defend the Bill Brown blunder claiming the overthrow of the grammatical argument with 16 irrelevant verses?

Are you really trying to defend TNC's junk translation of Cassiodorus, which he has retracted?

Thus are the specific two issues that are referenced.

Cassiodorus "the three mysteries"

Cyprian "these heavenly mysteries"

Eucherius "The majority interpret the passage here mystically, reading into that particular place the Trinity."

Go figure.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Notice Eucherius words "interpret the passage here mystically, reading into".

Meaning EIS-EGESIS.

 

[Steven Avery]

... I don't engage in arguments that I'm not qualified to speak or write on. All I can do is read the arguments of both sides and pay attention.

So why not read the first four posts in the thread mentioned above in Biblical Languages. Then let me know if there are anything that is not understandable. The posts require no Greek skills.

Thanks!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The posts require no Greek skills.

To the reader.

Note Steven's double standard, of carefully avoiding giving an answer to any questions related to any language (such as Greek, Latin, etc) but English - the only language he can engage in.

Latin questions, like why does Cyprian use the ablative case "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" for "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" rather than the nominative case "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" as the Vulgate variant text does?

Cyprian "Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto" = ablative case Latin
Vulgate Variant: "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" = nominative case Latin

Why?

Why did Cyprian himself choose to use the different Latin grammatical case to the Comma Johanneum?

 

[Steven Avery]

To the reader. Note Steven's double standard, of carefully avoiding giving an answer to any questions related to any language (such as Greek, Latin, etc) but English - the only language he can engage in.

Clearly, I never claimed to apply any Greek to Cyprian, I work with the existing English texts and discussions. So you can spin any theory you want, but I learned from your Cassiodorus Latin disaster, where I had to correct your translation blunder, that you are not reliable in trying to give a non-English text or explanation.

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

And I told you that the Greek writing refuting Bill Brown did not require any Greek-geek tech, it is all very simple. So using logic and common sense, I easily disposed of Bill Brown's absurd attempt to OVERTHROW the grammatical gender argument from Eugenius Bulgaris.

Still waiting for you to comment.

The contras all avoid giving any appraisal or defense of the Bill Brown blunder.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Clearly, I never claimed to apply any Greek to Cyprian, I work with the existing English texts and discussions..

Latin, of course, not Greek.
Late at night .

 

[Steven Avery]

And I told you that the Greek writing refuting Bill Brown did not require any Greek-geek tech, it is all very simple.

Remove the first “Greek”.
Good nite!

 

[logos1560]

So using logic and common sense,

If you consistently used logic and common sense and accepted what the Scriptures teach, you would reject erroneous KJV-only teaching that depends upon use of fallacies, use of divers measures [double standards], showing of partiality, and non-scriptural traditions of men. Your inconsistent, human reasoning is not reliable. You appeal to logic in some cases while you avoid it in others.

 

[Maestroh]

Steven Avery Spencer has had two full weeks to be straightforward and transparent.
His failure to do so will now be addressed.

On May 6, 2022, Steven Avery Spencer began his ill-informed responses to me and SUGGESTED he has read my thesis. What follows will demonstrate either:

• He never actually read the thesis at all OR
• He is hiding information from readers that demolish his position.

This will be very amply demonstrated, but it will be necessary to weave back and forth between two threads since he brought it up in both the “Syriac Peshitta” thread and the “Questions Avery Refuses to Answer” thread.

This will no doubt be yet another question he refuses to answer.

I apologize for the delay in detailed response, I’ve been dealing with multiple issues both at work and home (including AC out BOTH places last weekend when I thought I was going to have time to respond).

On May 6, Avery decided to go full bore after me with his typical aggressiveness (and level of misinformation).


Post 1

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?

Post 2
[/QUOTE]

Here is what Bill Brown wrote in the earlier CARM.

Still your claim?

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

We will pause to note two important things:

• Avery’s list that he alleges I posted has been edited down
• Avery IMPLIES here that HE HAS ACTUALLY READ my thesis.

Keep reading – it’s about to be important.

So far I have noted major omissions. I was amazed that you gave the Ian Howard Marshall personalization argument without even mentioning that verse 6 spirit is not personalized.

Uh, because that wasn’t what the thesis was about. You DO realize that “acknowledging or being familiar with OTHER POINTS OF VIEW” is a pretty basic requirement to actually being a scholar don’t you? I mean, I'm guessing since you've never written a graduate level thesis you might not know this, so we'll just add this to the list of things with which you have zero personal experience and yet offer a completely wrong opinion.

You also did NOT put in your wacky claim of sixteen verses that overthrow the grammatical argument.

Really?
Did you not read page 20?

Despite these strong arguments suggesting that Nolan’s claim is erroneous, the strongest refutation is finding similar occurrences of grammatical gender disagreement.

Not only that but the VERY FIRST example cited was (wait for it people) THE VERY EXAMPLE you and Bulgaris insist doesn’t even exist, a masculine participle and adjective with neuter nouns in 1 John 5:8.

This is from Beza's 1598 TR available online:
και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

I see the very same gender argument you're claiming is impossible Greek (even though you don't know Greek).
The bold and black words are MASCULINE (they occur in the previous passage).
The words in RED are neuter substantives.

Again – did you not actually read this? Because if you did then why did you not mention it on your blasts at me on here?

I then noted this objection was made OVER TWO CENTURIES AGO (also p 20) and that Nolan invented a truly preposterous notion to get around the obvious.

Now – at this point – I’ve given the very thing to you that you have demanded. Are you now going retract your years of asserting that the insertion of the Comma “fixes a grammatical problem” since all it actually does is move it to verse eight? Or will you invent a run around reason as to why what's here isn't really what's here? If so, you're at odds with Nolan, who admitted it and then lied about the solution.

And what’s amazing is despite TWO WEEKS to get this right and admit publicly you were wrong you fixate on an alleged CARM post from years ago AFTER you claim to have read the thesis that predates the alleged post by a good 5-6 years – presumably hoping I wouldn’t bring it up (not very scholarly OR honest to act this way, Steven Avery Spencer – but not surprising coming from any KJVOist).

Also all 16 of those verses and SEVERAL MORE appear on page 22. Again – did you not read page 22? Or did you just not read it carefully? Or did you read it and hope I wouldn’t mention it?

 

[Maestroh]

Or do you have another unbelievable excuse for why you hid your information from the readers?
But rather than simply admit, “Hey, I’ve been wrong all these years,” we got this level of stridence:

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.

Then what is YOUR REASON for leaving out the other examples? HHHMMMM????

I appreciate your offer of unsolicited advice but you should note that aside from your snide remark here, it isn’t my fault popular-level KJVOs (largely) don’t know who Bulgaris was. When David Fuller proliferated the grammatical argument 50 years ago, he printed a chapter from Nolan, not from Bulgaris. It is Nolan and Dabney – and those who read their material in good faith and believe this nonsense – who are responsible for the nonsense.

You might want to go read what else I said about this very subject:

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the internal support of the Comma Johanneum. This will be done by evaluating arguments that have recently proliferated but are rarely addressed by scholarship (page 3).

Most scholarship ignores the issue, and those who mention it reject the grammatical argument (page 23).

As noted earlier, text-critical scholarship considers the issue settled. Literature addressing the grammatical argument is difficult to find. Recent writings invoke the grammatical argument as if never addressed. Furthermore, because books and articles advocating the grammatical argument are nearly always written on a popular level, the distribution of misinformation is more widespread than the distribution of rebuttal (page 3).

You may not like it but more people know what Nolan wrote than what Bulgaris wrote. And including Bulgaris is simply not going to persuade anyone who actually cares about this issue. So you’re welcome to your opinion, but it has no authority outside of your cranium, either.

And yet again DESPITE KNOWING BETTER we get this after he knows better

This sounds like the same blunder you made in the OVERTHROW post on CARM. Where you noted 16 verses, but none of them were applicable since they included masculine and feminine nouns.

Except the whole beef (supposedly) is masculine adjective/participle with neuter nouns. Not only is that example in the next verse, but your verbiage above objecting to the examples isn’t even accurate as most of the cited examples include masculine/neuter combinations.

The purpose is the truth of the heavenly witnesses verse as Scripture.

Those opposed to authenticity in modern days, post 2000 on the internet, have time and again made the blunder of claiming that mixed gender verses are some sort of overthrow, or refutation, of the grammatical argument. And I have not found anyone making that faux argument before about 2005. (Afaik this began with a gentleman named Jim, who placed up numerous blog pages and forum posts, likely many are still up. Bill Brown referenced his position favorably in at least one of his blog posts.)

Bill Brown has not defended his use of verses with masculine or feminine nouns.

The simple and clear logic in my post above helps explain why.
If anyone else wants to contribute to the discussion, that would be fine!

One gentleman on BVDB, Euthymius, made an attempt. He referenced the verses in John, three verses, that appear to have pneuma with masculine grammar. However, the referent is actually paraclete, making that attempt of no value for this solecism issue.

Avery Spencer, at the time he posted this (on May 11), knew the very first example cited is the very kind of thing he claims doesn’t exist (even though he himself doesn’t read Greek). It’s completely understandable why he would want to pretend I didn’t address this issue, but it makes it impossible to believe that his actual concern is “truth,” too.

He also knew I had SIX OTHER POINTS – even the first of which Nolan concedes and which leads to the last chapter of the thesis – which Avery Spencer does not even mention or touch. He’s been asked for years to give a coherent answer regarding why NOBODY ever mentions this impossible Greek (to hear Bulgaris-Nolan-Dabney tell the tale). He even grabs the Maynard nonsense of “but Gregory,” but guess what? I even covered that on page 16. At this point there is literally NOTHING of his objections that I didn’t cover. Nothing having to do with GREEK.

 

[Maestroh]

Let’s review.

This is from May 6th – allegedly AFTER he read the thesis.

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

Bulgaria? The country?

This is actually incorrect since the so-called solecism is masculine with neuter. But I also made it crystal clear that appears in verse 8 – WHICH YOU KNEW AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THIS!!!!

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.

A second incorrect statement since I gave 32 examples (not 16) and they do NOT “all have masculine or feminine nous.” Remember – you’re going to have masculine/neuter lack of concordance to prove the point that Bulgaris and Nolan failed to make.

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

Except Steven Avery’s first two claims are 100% incorrect, making this conclusion completely backwards with reality.

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

My answer was in the thesis that you chose to hide the information from the readers here. I mean, when one’s argument is so strong (by which I mean weak) that you can just ignore the parts you don’t like (and which overturn your claim), you can prove anything.

Oh, what a web!

Except you’re the only one of us spinning a web……

The basic point of modern contra incompetence on the heavenly witnesses grammar has already been demonstrated. It requires very simple logic and no special Geek-tech.

Cherry picking is not demonstrating. Neither is ignoring examples that overturn your claims.

If you want to try to defend the use of analogies that are obviously not relevant, verses with masculine or feminine nouns, then go right ahead.

As a reminder, this man was challenged to a public debate on this subject back in 2011.
Real bold and tough here – but not willing to stand before an audience with this nonsense, where he’d self-immolate quickly.
It would make Quayle vs Bentsen look competitive by comparison - and he knows this.

A whole lot easier to be brave online. I’ve put myself in the line of fire with two PhDs.

On the day he does the same, we can have a discussion on this subject. Until then, one of us is accomplished with an earned credential and the other one is Steven Avery Spencer.

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 guy who pretends he knows Greek grammar accuses me of pretending. Incredible.

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.

Proves nothing. But anyway….

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.

It ALSO has other verses, none of which you seem to want to address – esp. 1 Jn 5:8. I’m sure you have a convenient excuse for it, but the fact is that even Nolan knew it was a problem so he just made stuff up.

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".

And is just as accurate.

 

[Maestroh]

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.

Again with the “since he refuted me in the thesis, I’ll just not mention it and go back with the alleged CARM post.

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.

Oh come on, you were saying that BEFORE YOU EVER READ THE THESIS!!!
So spare us.
You started with your opinion and you hold to it even when the evidence overturns it.

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.

Again – this is NOTHING but YOUR OPINION, and it is an opinion based on ignorance, presupposition, and simply ignoring contrary data.

If you weren't ignoring contrary data then why would you hide the information?'
YOU'VE. HAD. TWO. WEEKS.

Now, the paper has lots of other arguments.

This is called a colossal understatement.
Including six that PRECEDE the listing of 1 John 5:8 and NONE of which you have ever addressed coherently at all.

As I mentioned earlier, it is actually better than I expected, despite the huge omissions and typical contra errors.

Back with the old “didn’t mention this” nonsense....after he didn't mention stuff.....

And I was used to Bill Brown's nonsense reactive posting on the forums, so I find the thesis refreshing by comparison.

Only one of us has created an outlet Internet board where he can rage incoherently about all the things people say on the Net that make him angry (e.g. reactive).
And I’m not the one who did that, either.

As late as yesterday, he wrote the following:

By the way, if you put all your stuff in a paper, just make sure you do not blunder like Bill Brown. Bill missed the most fundamental part of the heavenly witnesses grammatical gender argument in a Dallas Theological Seminary thesis, and hilariously claimed 16 verses as an OVERTHROW, and refutation, of the grammatical argument. When they were totally irrelevant. In the paper there were more than 16, and it was very interesting, we were able to see how he erred.

Except we now see that no blunder was committed - and Avery chose to turn tail and run from the best arguments.
Which is what a person does when he has no leg to stand on.

At this point - dismissed.

 

[Maestroh]

Now that Avery has paid for my thesis after spending six years saying he wouldn't, I may as well put it online for free.



I've sent it to other posters here who can easily check my work against yours.

One of us has done the legwork - and the other one is you.

So don't be surprised if I just ignore you from now on.
You're clearly NOT interested in any sort of "truth" when you knew there was more to the situation and yet hid the information.

But let's deal with some of the points I made before he runs over to his own improperly named Pure Bible Forum and rants at a cloud.

 

[Maestroh]

Here are some highlights from the GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT chapter:

Pro-Comma advocates concede that the extant Greek manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly against their position.[1]
Because the external evidence is so strong, they present alternative arguments to vindicate the Comma. Several proposed lines of argument bear mention but will receive no attention in this thesis.[2]

These include:
the “worn out manuscripts” hypothesis[3]
the destruction of manuscripts in the Diocletian persecution[4]
the charge of inconsistency against reasoned eclecticism[5]
noting the minimal Greek evidence for 1 John[6]
the theological argument[7]

It is my personal observation that the preceding arguments reveal a flawed method: authenticity is assumed before analysis.[8] Without first assuming the authenticity of the Comma, most of the preceding arguments would never be proposed. These are not arguments developed in light of the evidence but rather arguments developed to explain the lack of evidence. The best effort at providing a positive argument for authenticity of the Comma is the grammatical argument.

On pp 11-12, I cover the big names - Bulgaris, Nolan, Dabney, Gaussen, Middleton, Cornwall.

Page 16
The easiest objection is obvious: how did every scribe copying every extant manuscript of 1 John miss poor grammar for seventeen centuries? Since early church fathers quoted the verse without the Comma, how is it possible that nobody considered that a grammatical problem might indicate the removal of a doctrinally significant passage, particularly given the importance such a verse would have had during the Trinitarian controversies?

Avery Spencer has yet to give us a coherent explanation for this obvious problem. Nolan at least had the integrity to realize he had to answer that question. Now - his answer was about as stupid as you can imagine - heretics removed it! - but at least he answered the question unlike the modern KJVO ostriches who stick their heads in the sand at any difficult question (which for them is any questions at all).

---

[1] Citations by early Church Fathers may be found in Brown, The Epistles of John, 781-85.

---

[1] The most common response is to appeal to an alleged large number of Latin witnesses (“thousands”) as somehow offsetting the lack of Greek ones (e.g., allegedly thousands of late Latin Vulgate manuscripts that contain the Comma are of greater value than the few Greek early ones that do not). This is the argument of Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (Tempe, AZ: Comma, 1995), 277, 284, 344-49. His argument is flawed in several ways: 1) it assumes every single Latin manuscript contains 1 John; 2) it assumes there are thousands of Latin manuscripts that contain 1 John, a highly unlikely assumption; 3) it counts each manuscript as one vote. Doing so violates the most basic tenet of textual criticism: “Universal suffrage has no place in textual criticism” (Leon Vaganay, rev. by Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 2d ed. [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 62). Although Maynard would probably deny claiming that every Latin manuscript has 1 John, his list of thousands of question marks representing 8,000 Latin manuscripts suggests this conclusion.

[2] These arguments are mentioned here to acknowledge that pro-Comma advocates do present more than just three arguments in their favor. The reason for not addressing each argument is because these arguments deal primarily with nonexistent evidence. It is one thing to say that the evidence supports your conclusion; it is quite another to claim that your conclusion would be supported if nonexistent evidence actually did exist. Three of these supplementary arguments are appeals to nonexistent evidence.

[3] This argument finds its origin in the writings of Dean John William Burgon (Dean John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark [London: John Murray, 1871], 23; Dean John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised [London: John Murray, 1883], 319). It was later suggested by Kirsopp Lake, “The Caeserean Text of the Gospel of Mark,” HTR 21 (1928): 349, and then elevated to the level of fact by Lake’s former student, E. F. Hills (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended 4th ed. [Des Moines: Christian Research, 1984], 185-86). For refutation, cf. D. A. Carson, The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 47-48; Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 37-45. Despite his unproven theory of “worn out manuscripts,” Burgon never advocates the Comma as a reading that vanished. Burgon’s position on the Comma is a contentious subject (cf. Maynard, History, 209-10). Although he never explicitly denounces it as a corruption, he also never advocates it (Revision Revised, 483).

[4] Maynard, History, 38.
[5] Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2000), 166-68.
[6] Maynard, History, 284, 305.
[7] Hills, The King James Version Defended, 213.
[8] This is the logical fallacy petitio principii or “begging the question.”

 

[Maestroh]

Avery Spencer, of course, will say "but Gregory!" And yet I dealt with that ALSO on page 16 and onto 17:

Gregory is not debating grammar, but he is responding to the charge of polytheism against the doctrine of the Trinity. He notes that this use of neuter with the masculine is not contrary to grammar but rather to “the laws” of grammar that anti-Trinitarians are presupposing. He never suggests that the grammar is incorrect. Thus, Gregory did not invoke the grammatical argument, meaning that the grammatical argument has no historical antecedent in the ancient church but is a recent development. [1]

PAGE 18
A third problem concerns how this alleged grammatical anomaly could have been introduced. Nolan provides a speculative answer: opponents of the Trinity must have removed the Comma.[1] While a full refutation of this proposal is found in chapter four, the most basic objection is rhetorical: how is it possible that heretics were intelligent enough to remove the reading but not intelligent enough to also alter the grammar? In this case, the same clever conspirators that removed the reading also foolishly exposed their fraud by forgetting to alter the grammar.

PAGE 19
The fifth problem is that a grammatical problem occurs regardless of the inclusion of the Comma:

I John 5: 7-8 Critical Text:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
(M) (M) (M) (N) (N) (N)

The masculine τρεῖς appears outside the Comma and is still attracted to three neuter nouns (πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, αἷμα) in v. eight. This objection was issued immediately towards Nolan’s position as he acknowledged in his 1830 update.[1] Nolan’s ingenious response was to say that the masculine participle refers backwards to the masculines included in the Comma. If this is true, however, then what substantive is the first μαρτυροῦντες modifying? Whatever Nolan’s reasoning, the “solecism” still occurs.

=====

If you want to know why NO SCHOLARS give any credence to this juvenile argument about grammar, simply read the bold. Nolan ADMITS this solecism occurs...but he invents some incredible Greek gymnastics to get around the obvious. Just like Steven Avery Spencer will no doubt attempt to do when he comes back refusing to admit his errors about me.

---

[1] Frederick Nolan, Supplement to “An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament” (London: Rivington, 1830), 6.

---

[1] Nolan, Integrity, 26-27. Cf. also 41, 129-30, 283. This will be covered in chapter four.

---

[1] Maynard gives the credit (or discredit) for finding this quotation to Jack Moorman. Cf. Maynard, History, 41.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Cassiodorus "the three mysteries"

Cyprian "these heavenly mysteries"

Eucherius "The majority interpret the passage here mystically"

On May 6, Avery decided to go full bore after me with his typical aggressiveness (and level of misinformation).

"Misinformation" You got that right.

 

[Maestroh]

I give NO LESS THAN SEVEN ARGUMENTS as to why this grammatical argument isn't worth the paper it's printed on BEFORE I write this on page 20:

Despite these strong arguments suggesting that Nolan’s claim is erroneous, the strongest refutation is finding similar occurrences of grammatical gender disagreement.

What then follows is a list of solecisms capped off by this in the footnote on page 23:
There are a multitude of other examples, including: Matt 28.19; Rom 4.12; Col 3.11; Rev 19.15 in the NT. In the LXX, examples include: Exod 23.7; Num 14.15; Deut 12.29; 18.14; 31.3; Ps 43.3; 77.55; Job 17.6; Jer 25.9; Ezek 11.16; Ezek 30.23, 26.

As I've told Avery Spencer many times previously: there are solecisms ALL THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE in Greek.
People who read Greek know this. People who are trying to argue theological points pretend it's a huge find - but only if they cannot read it firsthand. People who read it firsthand know the objection has zero merit.

So now let's address the obvious question: "So assuming Bulgaris limited his argument to masculines with neuters in one direction, why did you list a bunch of things with feminine nouns?" And I would answer that with three points:

1) Bulgaris must have never read verse eight to have made such a stupid comment.
2) Bulgaris HIMSELF didn't rely upon this argument like his modern "let me quote this guy" ignoramuses do
3) It demonstrates the point to ANY average KJVOist who reads the material that solecisms occur all over the Bible, including the LXX.

I wrote for multiple audiences...not just the scholars and not just the laypersons.
You see, that's part of what a graduate level education teaches one to do.

So the snide comments about "oh you weren't trying to" are simple nonsense.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Are you now going retract your years of asserting that the insertion of the Comma “fixes a grammatical problem” since all it actually does is move it to verse eight?

Bravo! ???

Fantastic point.