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

Unbound68

Well-known member
I did say he did not employ invisible allegories that would confuse and fool his readers when they looked at the Bible. In fact, we have not found invisible allegories in any writer.
The only readers confused and fooled are you and your KJVO clan. So your position is that Cyprian and other ECFs aren't allowed to INTERPRET scripture in their writings?

And did you coin that idiotic phrase "invisible allegory?"

The Church is not bound by your ridiculous lexicon of made up phrases ("solecism anyway"), your incessant use of words like "evidences" (that no one else on the planet uses), and your all around bad English grammar and poor sentence construction.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
You should indicate who you are quoting, if anybody.

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

Since you write of "three masculine persons", note that I do have a post about Bill Brown saying about Frederick Nolan:



This is a phantom refutation.

Nowhere is it shown that Nolan talked of three masculine witnesses.
There is no footnote, and my search has not found any such spot.

Earlier placed here:

I wasn't quoting Bill Brown's thesis.

I thought this question up on my own based on reading several authors (including Bill's excellent point in his brilliant thesis) and what exactly is the key grammatical point (the crux) that makes the Pro-Comma-Advocates think the masculine gender plural number Greek words, such as τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες and οἱ τρεῖς in clauses A and D, in verse 8, are in fact pointing backwards grammatically to these ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος in verse 7, as the supposed masculine antecedent's.

You completely avoided answering that question.

It's a valid question, and it demonstrates you don't understand the key point that supports your claim about the grammar/syntax of 1 John 5:7-8.

To which plural masculine persons or what things, then, are οἱ μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDS looking to by "attraction" in 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A?

What three masculine persons are in the preceding context to 1 John 5:7 (note verse 7) Clause-A who both perform the action denoted by μαρτυροῦντες and who by gender and number concord with μαρτυροῦντες BACKWARDLY?

1 John 5:7
[Part-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Part-C] ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Part-D]
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
1 John 5:8
[Part-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Part-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Part-C] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Part-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν

Remembering also that you (and Babinotis) stated that there is a SYNTACTIC PARALLEL (note SYNTACTIC) here in verse 7 corresponding with verse 8.

Both are exactly the same morphologically and grammatically.

1 John 5:7 [Part-A] τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
1 John 5:8 [Part-A] τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

Because the masculine gender words in 1 John 5:8 [Part-A] τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες couldn't possibly be "attracted to" to the three neuter nouns τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα in 1 John 5:8 [Part-C]!

Right Steven? This is what causes the solecism wouldn't it?

Therefore I'm asking you Steven (nobody else - although I don't begrudge you getting help) what exactly grammatical/syntactical difference is there between 1 John 5:8(Clause-A) μαρτυροῦντες pointing backwards to ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος in 1 John 5:7(Clause-C), as there supposed masculine antecedent's, and 1 John 5:7(Clause-A) μαρτυροῦντες pointing backwards to masculine antecedent's (based upon the same grammatical rule/principle of "attraction" that the Pro-Comma-Advocates talk about) that prevents 1 John 5:7(Clause-A) μαρτυροῦντες from pointing backwards to masculine antecedent?

You claim to be the worlds foremost expert on this particular grammatical point, claiming to understand it better than scholars, grammarians, Greek NT students and teachers alike.

Teach us how this Comma Advocate backwards looking grammatical concordinating works Steven.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Which begs the question: how do you determine he quoted the Bible accurately at all if what he's quoting doesn't match the KJV?

You go to scholars who have studied the particular issue.

In addition to the Kenyon quote, (this may have been the source for the Souter quote) accepted by Daniel Wallace as true, we have a longer section from Leonard Twells:

A critical examination of the late new text and version of the New Testament; wherein the editor [D. Mace]'s corrupt text, false version, and fallacious notes are censur'd, Volume 2 (1731)
Leonard Twells (1684-1782)
https://books.google.com/books?id=j2R5h3hZXq8C&pg=PA134

For to say, as some do, that the blessed Martyr here gives us only the mystical sense of the eighth verse, in which the Spirit, the Water and the Blood were explained of the Three Persons in the Trinity, is to ascribe an Interpretation to the Age of Cyprian, which probably was first invented by St. Austin, 150 Years after. Besides, granting this Exposition to have been as old as Cyprian, unless it lhall further appear by other instances, that he was wont to cite Exposition of Scripture, that were not in the Copies of his Time as Scripture, it cannot be deemed probable, that he has done fo in the Passage cited. But of all the Fathers Greek or Latin, no one is more remarkable for citing Scripture verbatim than Cyprian. It is therefore trifling in LeClerc, to conclude from Tertullian's and Optatus's lax Citations of Scripture, that no African Writer can be depended upon in that Respect. For it is not the Character of the Age, nor of the Country, that is to be attended to in such a Dispute, but the known Practice of the particular Writer in Question. And since in a case on which fo much depends, our Adversaries have not been able to produce so much as a single Instance, where St. Cyprian departs from the Letter of his Copy in citing Scripture, we may insist upon it, that the Words in Dispute were in some the African Exemplars, before the Middle of the third century. third Century. I add, that Cyprian's Manner of citing John 30. and 1 John v. 7 as it were with a Breath, greatly confirms us in the Belief, that when Tertullian has the same Expressions, one after another, he spake the Words of Scripture alike in both.

Henry Thomas Armfield, in many ways still the best writer on Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses, quotes from this excellent section:

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield (1836-1898)
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/136/mode/2up
p. 136-138
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
The grammatical construction in both verses, in the same Clause-A, is exactly the same.

1 John 5:7 (Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
1 John 5:8 (Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

According to common Pro-Comma argument, the masculine gender words in 1 John 5:8(Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες couldn't possibly be "attracted to" (i.e. in concord) to/with the three neuter nouns τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα in 1 John 5:8 (Clause-C)!

Correct?

You follow so far Steven?

Supposedly, if 1 John 5:8(Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες could be "attracted to" (i.e. concord with) the three neuter nouns τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα in 1 John 5:8 (Clause-C), then this would cause the said solecism!

Right?

You follow so far Steven?

Therefore, the masculine gender words 1 John 5:8 (Clause-A, note verse 8) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες have to (by Comma Enthusiast's logic) have to LOOK BACKWARDS TO AGREE/CONCORD GRAMMATICALLY/SYNTACTICALLY to/with ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος as there antecedent in verse 7.

Right?

That's how it works? Isn't it Steven?
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Yet you were the one who said "Wrong" without substance.
So you are making a boomerang request.
Context! I said you were WRONG in stating that what *I* provided wasn't on the pages I cited from the work *I* was looking at! I was defending MY OWN CITATION from what I had IN FRONT OF ME! I even proved it by providing the full excerpt with page numbers!

Don't be a weasel.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
I'll simplify my argument even more.

The grammatical construction in both verses, in the same Clause-A, is exactly the same.

1 John 5:7 (Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
1 John 5:8 (Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

According to common Pro-Comma argument, the masculine gender words in 1 John 5:8(Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες couldn't possibly be "attracted to" (i.e. in concord) to/with the three neuter nouns τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα in 1 John 5:8 (Clause-C)!

Hypothetically, if 1 John 5:8(Clause-A) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες could be "attracted to" (i.e. concord with) the three neuter nouns τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα in 1 John 5:8 (Clause-C), then this would cause the said solecism!

Therefore, the masculine gender words 1 John 5:8 (Clause-A, note verse 8) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες have to (by Comma Enthusiast's logic) have to LOOK BACKWARDS TO AGREE/CONCORD GRAMMATICALLY/SYNTACTICALLY to/with ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος as there antecedent in verse 7.

So, I simply ask.

To what antecedent do the masculine gender words 1 John 5:7 (Clause-A, note verse 7) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες have to (by Comma Enthusiast's logic) have to LOOK BACKWARDS TO AGREE/CONCORD GRAMMATICALLY/SYNTACTICALLY look to as there antecedent?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The only readers confused and fooled are you and your KJVO clan. So your position is that Cyprian and other ECFs aren't allowed to INTERPRET scripture in their writings?

They are "allowed" to write anything

However, when they have an exposition of an allegory, you will know what is being allegorized.

There are no invisisble allegories.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
made up phrases ("solecism anyway"),

Do you have a better phrase for the theory that the earthly witnesses verse is still a solecism even when the heavenly witnesses verse is in the text?

Come up with a better phrase and I will use the new phrase.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Context! I said you were WRONG in stating that what *I* provided wasn't on the pages I cited from the work *I* was looking at! I was defending MY OWN CITATION from what I had IN FRONT OF ME! I even proved it by providing the full excerpt with page numbers!

It certainly looked like my comment was much softer than yours.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Do you have a better phrase for the theory that the earthly witnesses verse is still a solecism even when the heavenly witnesses verse is in the text?

Come up with a better phrase and I will use the new phrase.
You only need to invent a phrase because you're operating on the assumption that the Comma is genuine scripture.

No one since the Bible was written needed your phrase.....until KJVOism reared it's ugly head.

And it appears to me that it isn't a theory at all, thus no need to invent a phrase. You don't need to be coming up with a phrase to use when you don't read Greek or understand Greek grammar to begin with!
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You only need to invent a phrase because you're operating on the assumption that the Comma is genuine scripture.

No one since the Bible was written needed your phrase.....until KJVOism reared it's ugly head.

And it appears to me that it isn't a theory at all, thus no need to invent a phrase. You don't need to be coming up with a phrase to use when you don't read Greek or understand Greek grammar to begin with!

So you give a circular argumentation as to why you do not like the phrase.

A big nothing.
 
Top