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

[Steven Avery]

John Oxlee
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA138

But, if we may not be permitted to personify the spirit, the water, and the blood, when the seventh verse is omitted, how, I ask, shall we be any more at liberty to do so when it is actually thrust in?

This is as close as he gets, but it is way off-base because afaik Nolan does not claim that the spirit, water and blood are personified. If he does, I would like to see it, and I would chalk it up to error.

However, we can allow it as the one known early example of a "solecism anyway" argument.

And I do not see anything that matches your claim of a "preposterous notion" that relates directly to the grammatical argument. We can go into the Eusebius issues separately, the back and forth with Thomas Falconer (1772-1839).

Bill Brown, you try to use Horne as an additional early reference that is contra-Nolan and the grammatical argument, however you erred.

Bill Brown thesis - p. 23
The scholar who best interacted with Nolan’s argument is Home. Though not mentioning Nolan by name, Home writes:

The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.

Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned, (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant,) must likewise be rejected.59

Home is reiterating the earlier objection: anyone who rejects v. 7 on the basis of grammar must likewise reject v. 8 if the Comma is included.

55 T. H. Home, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures 12th ed., vol. IV (London: Longman, Greens, 1869), 381. Pappas, Authenticity, 70-83, suggests this same argument in 2011.

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

When this was first written, in the early 1820s, Horne supported authenticity and thus he was saying that the heavenly witnesses is necessary for the grammar. You read this opposite of the reality. Ironically, you seem to understand your difficulty by equating his argument with that of Pappas.

Here you can see that when this section is used, after the Horne flip, and later editions, it is placed within the pro-authenticity arguments.

1856 Tregelles and Davidson edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=DgEVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381

This was not a "solecism anyway", with heavenly and earthly witnesses, argument.

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

My conjecture is that this is a reference to the quote on p. 19.

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.48 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.

48 Frederick Nolan, Supplement to "An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament" (London: Rivington, 1830), 6.

Supplement
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xwg4sZ80GmcC&pg=PA6

The footnote does not pan out, and it is hard to find anything matching your text.
Your logic is what is weak here.

 

[Maestroh]

You are behind.
As I corrected this back two weeks ago.

You mean when you hid the information?

Then we have the question of 1 John 5:8
The reference you give on p. 20 is:
This is as close as he gets,

It's amusing to watch you continue to pretend I only gave the edited selections you cite. And it's even more interesting to watch you pretend I didn't list 1 John 5:8 FIRST as the proof.

but it is way off-base because afaik Nolan does not claim that the spirit, water and blood are personified.

I never said he did, either - did i?

If he does, I would like to see it, and I would chalk it up to error.

Well, he made a bunch and so did Bulgaris, but I don't expect you to ever admit that.

However, we can allow it as the one known early example of a "solecism anyway" argument.

Avery just admitted his entire argument that he has made for 20 years online is 100% WRONG!!!

 

[Maestroh]

And I do not see anything that matches your claim of a "preposterous notion" that relates directly to the grammatical argument. We can go into the Eusebius issues separately, the back and forth with Thomas Falconer (1772-1839).

I don't care.

You just admitted there's a solecism there that you have run around the internet for over two decades stirring up stuff.

You just lost the argument forever.

You want to avoid the basic issue of the 16 blunder verses, so you repeat this again and again.

You mean I want to be ACTUALLY REPRESENTED WITH WHAT I WROTE TEN YEARS AGO - and you have a problem with that?

However, trying to use 1 John 5:8 as a diversion

In two posts, he went from "okay, I admit it's a solecism" to accusing me of a diversion.

 

[Maestroh]

from your obvious 16-verse blunder is simply a worthless circular argument.

Steven Avery: "I demand that YOU say WHAT I WANT YOU TO SAY rather than WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID!!!"

Good try, though.

Says the guy who still hasn't explained why he is STILL in THIS thread misrepresenting my position.

Ok, working on catching up.

I will. Answer the question.

Why did you hide the information in my thesis from the reader?
You did it again today.

For about a week I had very limited posting,

Nonsense.

Today is Monday.
You posted your last nonsense on this thread on Thursday.
I posted the thorough refutation of your straw men on Thursday.

You then posted:
FORTY-EIGHT responses from Thursday to Sunday on Romans 9:5
TWENTY-NINE posts on your Pure Bible Forum.

Nobody on planet earth believes "I had very limited posting" means "I posted 61 times during the interim."

Nobody.

and was emphasizing especially the fascinating Granville Sharp studies.

"I was fighting with other people awaiting my Greek friends to email me back with a convoluted explanation" is what you mean.

Actually I have answered that numerous times.
Here is one.

Refuted in my thesis.
And AGAIN you didn't mention that, either.

Matthaei also reported a scholium that tries to explain the masculine grammar as a reference to the Trinity.

Ho hum

Plus most scribes are simply copyists.

Untrue. If this were true, there wouldn't be any textual variants.

It is not their job to correct the text, or write various notes.

They did. Anyone who has ever collated a manuscript even from the 11th century sees the exact opposite of what you are alleging.

As to your other attempts, the six other points, surely we could discuss every one of them.
My pleasure.

Boy, your tears are so delicious

 

[Maestroh]

However, first you should explain why you show sixteen clearly irrelevant verses, with masculine and feminine substantives. You clearly were under a delusion that any grammatical discord, of any nature, refutes the grammatical gender argument as given by Eugenius and Nolan.

Folks - this guy cannot argue outside of the same talking points.

This is a psychological phenomenon known as "the security blanket of redundancy." When people simply won't admit the truth that is hitting them squarely in the face, they simply resort to rehearsed mantras, almost creed-like.

He keeps demanding that I answer his question based upon an edited except he cannot link - and listed by a person who HAS A LONG HISTORY of both distortion, misrepresentation and misquotation.

Fact is - there ARE solecisms throughout the Greek NT.
FACT is - the one he insisted wasn't there HE HIMSELF POSTED.
But he wasn't aware of it because (wait for it) HE DOESN'T KNOW GREEK!!!!

I've never had an interest in a debate

It's easy to see why, too.
You know full well that redundant Gail Riplingereseque recitation of talking points that looks like a juvenile online would look even more embarrassing in front of an audience.

You also know that it would take me two questions to get you into either a flat out lie, a distortion of record that you'd hem and haw to explain, or to demonstrate you simply don't know what you're talking about.

And you fear that more than anything else.
Just know that the rest of us know this.

(Easy to document on BVDB.)

Yes - nine years after this guy insulted me from one end of the universe to the other and slandered me, I unloaded on him. That's five years after he made it crystal clear he was terrified of a debate.

This is as unreality based as his objection is to my thesis.

You once apologized for all that raunchy stuff, on BVDB when I was not there, but then you retracted the apology.

Because you continued to act like one.

As a reminder - YOU are the one who has been banned from there twice, not me.

 

[Steven Avery]

Avery just admitted his entire argument that he has made for 20 years online is 100% WRONG!!!

You just make up anything.

You just admitted there's a solecism there that you have run around the internet for over two decades stirring up stuff.
You just lost the argument forever.

More made up nothings.

I will. Answer the question.
Why did you hide the information in my thesis from the reader?
You did it again today.

And I have made many quotes from your thesis.
A few were your errors, one at least was a compliment.

Nothing significant was hidden.

Your reference to other verses, including LXX, are not even relevant to your fundamental blunder on 16 irrelevant verses. Verses that have nothing to do with the grammatical gender argument.

1 John 5:8 is relevant because it is a classical circular argument, so I added it to the 16.

"I was fighting with other people awaiting my Greek friends to email me back with a convoluted explanation" is what you mean.

None of this has heavenly witnesses study has led to emails to anyone for a long time.

The wonderful explanation from Georgios Babiniotis came in response to an email from Nick Sayers.

 

[Steven Avery]

Folks - this guy cannot argue outside of the same talking points.

This is a psychological phenomenon known as "the security blanket of redundancy." When people simply won't admit the truth that is hitting them squarely in the face, they simply resort to rehearsed mantras, almost creed-like.

He keeps demanding that I answer his question based upon an edited except he cannot link - and listed by a person who HAS A LONG HISTORY of both distortion, misrepresentation and misquotation.

You know full well that the exact same 16 blunder verses are listed as a group in your thesis. With the same notations showing they are all including masculine and feminine nouns, therefore irrelevant to the grammatical gender argument.

So you can deal with the blunder there, if you prefer, over the post that was on the James Snapp forum, that mirrored your CARM post. (Note: earlier I said the post was from James Snapp, actually it was brought over by a fellow named Azim, on the forum hosted by James Snapp. James then tried to use your false information, referencing it on CARM.)

You are using the phenomenon of diversion and smoke and mirrors.

This remains the key issue of your paper, a list of 16 verses that on immediate checking are totally irrelevant, and you will do anything to avoid owning up to the blunder.

Other stuff is at times interesting, I gave you a few corrections, but really it is all commentary.
Your bluster posting is irrelevant, only meant to avoid the basic issue of the 16 blunder verses.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Your reference to other verses, including LXX, are not even relevant to your fundamental blunder on 16 irrelevant verses. Verses that have nothing to do with the grammatical gender argument.

You don't understand that argument (LXX Greek) either because you (self admittedly up until now) cannot read Greek.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

He keeps demanding that I answer his question based upon an edited except he cannot link - and listed by a person who HAS A LONG HISTORY of both distortion, misrepresentation and misquotation.

Fact is - there ARE solecisms throughout the Greek NT.
FACT is - the one he insisted wasn't there HE HIMSELF POSTED.
But he wasn't aware of it because (wait for it) HE DOESN'T KNOW GREEK!!!!

So true.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You know full well that the exact same 16 blunder verses are listed as a group in your thesis. With the same notations showing they are all including masculine and feminine nouns, therefore irrelevant to the grammatical gender argument.

Is it a grammatical gender argument? Or natural gender argument Steven? Please tell us.

 

[Steven Avery]

You don't understand that argument (LXX Greek) either because you (self admittedly up until now) cannot read Greek.

Not the issue.
The various "LXX" (or Greek Old Testament) texts vary greatly and are not inspired by God.
So discussing solecisms there is not really relevant.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Not the issue.
The "LXX" texts vary greatly and are not inspired by God.
So discussing solecisms there is not really relevant.

So the LXX (the Bible of the Apostles - quoted throughout the NT) is not Greek now, and is irrelevant to examples of Koine solecisms. Interesting. How does that work?

 

[Steven Avery]

Is it a grammatical gender argument? Or natural gender argument Steven? Please tell us.

This is a grammatical gender argument.

Have you looked at the 16 verses?

Do they have anything to do with the grammatical gender argument?

The gentleman who got confused with "natural gender" is named jim, with lots of blogs and posts, some should still be online.. I do not think that Bill Brown has gone down that rabbit trail. Natural gender is really only of significance in the limited constructio ad sensum verses.

 

[Steven Avery]

So the LXX (the Bible of the Apostles - quoted throughout the NT) is not Greek now, and is irrelevant to examples of Koine solecisms. Interesting. How does that work?

We have no "the LXX".
As I told you there are various widely differing texts.
You can even have Romans 3 copied into Psalm 14.

 

[logos1560]

You are using the phenomenon of diversion and smoke and mirrors.

You seem to be describing your own tactics instead of someone else's.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This is a grammatical gender argument.

Are you sure Steven. How do you know it's not a natural Greek gender argument?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The gentleman who got confused with "natural gender" is named jim, with lots of blogs and posts, some should still be online..

Do you think it's wise Steven, for someone who hasn't even learned the Greek alphabet to criticize anyone on Greek grammar?

 

[Steven Avery]

Do you think it's wise Steven, for someone who hasn't even learned the Greek alphabet to criticize anyone on Greek grammar?

Sure, especially when they make an obvious blunder that only requires simple logic.

1) The grammatical argument is related only to neuter nouns working with masculine (or feminine) grammar.
See Eugenius Bulgaris, and this was even stated by Bill Brown in the thesis.
"The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives." - p. iii
Also on p. 7
Bulgaris makes it clear that the inverse is not a concern.

2) The 16 verses from Bill Brown all have either masculine or feminine nouns, and they have neuter grammar.

3) Ergo, they are irrelevant to the earthly witnesses grammatical gender argument.

The embarrasment is only on those contras who are unwilling to speak the truth and allow this blunder to stand without comment.

 

[logos1560]

We have no "the LXX".
As I told you there are various widely differing texts..

How do you know? You have not read any edition of the Greek LXX including the edition consulted by the Church of England makers of the KJV.
Are you claiming that they did not have an edition of the Greek LXX?

You are defending upon the opinions of others likely including unreliable KJV-only sources.